Tonight I had the privilege of attending a truly refreshing exercise in direct democracy, a town hall meeting of sorts with Nick Clegg and Brian Paddick. Ok, there was nothing to vote on or anything, but what I -and any other member of the public- were treated to, entirely for free, was the opportunity to grill both men on their policies, beliefs, pretty much anything for an hour and a half. What made it more amazing was that these two were taking the time to subject themselves to this from people who, for the most part, were already on their side anyway, with just two days left till the local and Mayoral elections. Time they could have spent, in other words, campaigning to people whose votes they needed and didn't already have.
Clegg has been doing this frequently across the country since becoming leader. It's part of his programme to re-engage with the vast swathes of the population who couldn't bring themselves to vote at the last election, outnumbering the total of those who voted for the winning party for the first time in history. Paddick joined in naturally, with the event being held in London and the election round the corner, to highlight his own Mayoral credentials. It was him that I went along to see in particular, hoping that he would assuage some of the doubts that have so far been keeping me from voting for him this Thursday. Unfortunately, he failed.
One of Paddick's top manifesto pledges is to chair the Metropolitan Police Authority, giving him the power to influence the Met's policing strategy and, therefore, focus their efforts and resources on the key areas of crime and disorder as specified by him. Although this would hardly turn the Mayor into the Tsar of the Police Service, he would still have a decisive stake in the hiring and firing of Police chiefs whilst his opinions and decisions, as an elected official, would carry far greater weight with the public. Some may celebrate this as a brave attempt to make politicians truly accountable, to the people they represent, for the state of their city. Sir Simon Milton, President of the Local Government Association, is one of those people and in February called for local councils across the country to be gven the power to hire and fire their respective Police Chiefs. I, however, harbour great concern that it would mark the politicisation of the Police Service and therefore felt compelled to question Mr Paddick on his declared intention to chair the MPA, when presented with the unique opportunity to do so tonight.
Sadly, he did not share my point of view, replying to my question with a tirade against Commissioner Sir Ian Blair and Ken Livingstone for backing him through all the trials and tribulations of late. This told me more about why he wanted to chair the MPA than anything else and subsequently reinforced my view that such a position should be kept well out of reach of the London Mayor and his political agenda. However, it was not just his all too clear grudge against his former boss that bothered me, but the lack of any foresight on what I consider to be a very contraversial issue.
The need for the Metropolitan Police Service, and indeed all police forces, to be independent so that each Chief Constable and Commissioner can focus their attention on solving and preventing crimes and not on tending to their political masters with the impending fear of losing their jobs if they refuse, did not seem to register on Mr Paddick at all. This in spite of the fact that he himself recently criticised Sir Ian Blair for so forcefully backing the government up on their calls for an extension of the pre-charge detention limit to 90 days back in 2005. Speaking to the BBC that day, he said: "If there's a perception that their (police forces') chief is aligned to a political party...that undermines the rank and file officer."
It is not unconceivable that in such an instance as the 90 day campaign, a Mayor with the power to fire the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, a far less complicit Commissioner in this scenario, could publicly accuse him of undermining the security of the city, whilst privately threatening him, if he refused to get on board. And of course, why does the support of the Police matter so much in such heated political debates? Because the opinion of the police is considered, by not least the public, to be independent and only concerned with the security of the citizens under their protection, thereby serving as the perfect endorsement for what would otherwise be a distinctly political decision.
As a result, the failure of Brian Paddick to take any of this into consideration as well as the precedent that such a move would set throughout the rest of the country if he, or Boris who has the same policy, were to be elected this Thursday is what's stopping me from pledging my support for him. That and his whiter than white rhetoric which displays a significant naivety on his part and which you just know will come back to haunt him at some point in the future.
On the upside, I did think that Paddick had an otherwise good night, making some thoughtful and impassioned arguments, and being interrupted for applause on several occasions. Nick Clegg, meanwhile, was absolutely breath-taking. He seemed so genuine, engaged and passionate. His answers were thorough and actually addressed the questions put to him, a first for many a politician. Tonight I found myself, for the first time, being truly inspired by him and his vision for the country. If only he could pull off such amazing performances on TV, the we might not be languishing on 17% in the polls, but rather taking advantage of Labour's meltdown. In any case, a truly stimulating evening with two very talented politicians, who for all their flaws, still have an incredible amount to offer the people of London and throughout the UK. Hence my dilemna.
Tuesday 29 April 2008
Thursday 10 April 2008
No place for scroungers in the UK (unless they wear a suit and tie)
We really do hate scroungers in this country, don't we? Every day there is a new story about someone living on benefits, ripping off the nation, spending other people's money on booze, fags and designer clothes, whilst pleading poverty when brought before the courts fot not paying their bills. One such story in the news this week was that of the Nickells, a couple living on incapacity benefit, and fighting a council decision to refuse them housing benefit, after squandering £100,000 of scratchcard prize money. The hapless couple, who claimed they were unable to work because Mr Nickell has a frozen shoulder and Mrs Nickell is awaiting a hip replacement, told GMTV how they were knee deep in debt and could not pay for their own upkeep without additional benefits. The public response was predictable. GMTV viewers wrote in saying how the Nickells made their 'blood boil' and how the taxpayer should not be made to bail them out for being stupid. Even the photo of the couple on the GMTV website came with the caption 'scroungers'.
Of course it is not just the media who are keen to cash in on the public's resentment of benefit claimants. The government, keen not to miss the bandwagon, have made a big deal of talking tough on the unemployed with the proposal of 'fit notes' from doctors to cut down on the number of people claiming incapacity benefit and endless tv ad warnings of the latest crackdown on benefit fraud. One Conservative member of Medway council in Kent recently even insisted, whilst discussing the case of the mother of abducted Shannon Matthews, that the burden placed by unemployed parents on society was so great that the only solution was forced sterilisation. He later apologised, although it would have been interesting to hear how exactly the lifestyle of a mother of seven in West Yorkshire was breaking the backs of the 1.6m residents of Kent.
Now, I was just as gobsmacked as the next person by the Nickells' wrecklessness and I expect them to do everything possible to cover their own costs, such as selling off the car and caravan they bought with their prize money, before they turn to the council. But I was more astounded by the selectiveness of the moral outrage displayed by the public and the media. If its scroungers they want to lynch, they're looking at the wrong people. They should be focusing on the likes of Adam Applegarth, the former chief executive of Northern Rock, who is due to collect a £760,000 pay-off after running the bank into the ground and forcing the government to bail them out with £24bn of taxpayers money. They should be focusing on the high-flying executives who egregiously exploit loopholes in the tax system so that their cleaners end up paying more than them.
As for the government, rather than wasting their revenues on adverts designed to intimidate the unemployed, how about they spend it on closing the loopholes that allow so many to escape paying any tax. In short, it is estimated that, whereas benefit fraud costs taxpayers £3bn a year, tax evasion costs £23bn a year. On top of that, time and again, we hear about public sector consultants, whether it's Bob Kiley the London transport chief or Stephen Carter, Gordon Brown's latest star signing, and their astronomical salaries, benefits and pay-offs all paid for by the tax-payer and all for doing...well not that much by the looks of it.
Then again, the scapegoating of the unemployed is only consistent with the trend in Britain today to put spin over substance and unfortunately people like the Nickells are not as well versed in manipulating the media to defend themselves as the smartly-clad, clean shaven city slickers.
Of course it is not just the media who are keen to cash in on the public's resentment of benefit claimants. The government, keen not to miss the bandwagon, have made a big deal of talking tough on the unemployed with the proposal of 'fit notes' from doctors to cut down on the number of people claiming incapacity benefit and endless tv ad warnings of the latest crackdown on benefit fraud. One Conservative member of Medway council in Kent recently even insisted, whilst discussing the case of the mother of abducted Shannon Matthews, that the burden placed by unemployed parents on society was so great that the only solution was forced sterilisation. He later apologised, although it would have been interesting to hear how exactly the lifestyle of a mother of seven in West Yorkshire was breaking the backs of the 1.6m residents of Kent.
Now, I was just as gobsmacked as the next person by the Nickells' wrecklessness and I expect them to do everything possible to cover their own costs, such as selling off the car and caravan they bought with their prize money, before they turn to the council. But I was more astounded by the selectiveness of the moral outrage displayed by the public and the media. If its scroungers they want to lynch, they're looking at the wrong people. They should be focusing on the likes of Adam Applegarth, the former chief executive of Northern Rock, who is due to collect a £760,000 pay-off after running the bank into the ground and forcing the government to bail them out with £24bn of taxpayers money. They should be focusing on the high-flying executives who egregiously exploit loopholes in the tax system so that their cleaners end up paying more than them.
As for the government, rather than wasting their revenues on adverts designed to intimidate the unemployed, how about they spend it on closing the loopholes that allow so many to escape paying any tax. In short, it is estimated that, whereas benefit fraud costs taxpayers £3bn a year, tax evasion costs £23bn a year. On top of that, time and again, we hear about public sector consultants, whether it's Bob Kiley the London transport chief or Stephen Carter, Gordon Brown's latest star signing, and their astronomical salaries, benefits and pay-offs all paid for by the tax-payer and all for doing...well not that much by the looks of it.
Then again, the scapegoating of the unemployed is only consistent with the trend in Britain today to put spin over substance and unfortunately people like the Nickells are not as well versed in manipulating the media to defend themselves as the smartly-clad, clean shaven city slickers.
Wednesday 2 April 2008
The Immigration Debate: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics
This week the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee unveiled its report on the effects of immigration into the UK, concluding that the "economic benefits to the resident population of net immigration (immigration minus emigration) are small, especially in the long run." Yet immigration remains a highly charged and divisive issue in the UK.
This is because 21st Century Britons find it increasingly difficult to reconcile their anxiety over increased immigration with their committment to racial equality. And this is because no clear solution to the problems associated with immigration has been presented that isn't intrinsically linked to race. This may seem unavoidable - after all, people who travel here from abroad are by definition foreign and, as native Brits living in British Overseas Territories already enjoy the same rights as us mainlanders, the likelihood is that immigrants will therefore be of a different nationality, religion, culture or race. However, things get more complicated when we consider migrants who have successfully settled here: Should they be forced to learn English; Are they a burden on public services; Are they planning to bring their families over? Suddenly we find ourselves in the sticky situation of addressing the rights of ethnic minorities in this country and the continuing influx of more and more of them into the country as one and the same question.
In 1968, however, when Enoch Powell made his Rivers of Blood speech, Britain was a very different place. Even if you ignore the debate over whether he was quoting a constituent or simply paraphrasing Far Right propaganda to support his argument, his position remained one which would be considered anathema to most people today. When he made his speech, he was arguing against anti-discrimination laws in housing and employment. He was arguing to protect an era where pubs commonly displayed signs reading: "No blacks, No dogs, No Irish". He was defending an old woman's (his alleged constituent) right to refuse to house black lodgers simply because they were black, depicting them as violent thugs for good measure. The result of Powell's speech was to energise the National Front and stoke fears amongst the white working class that the black man would one day have the whip hand over the white man. We still see similar sorts of racism today especially in tabloid newspapers. A poll of The Sun readers last year showed that on average they believed immigrants accounted for 25% of the population. Actually its just 8%.
My view is that the problems associated with immigration: housing shortages, strained public services, fierce competition for jobs etc are more examples of market failure than anything else. At the end of the day it is economics, and the British financial regulatory system to boot, that are screwing over the white working classes who claim to suffer most from the fallout of increased immigration. The CBI says businesses choose immigrants over domestic residents because they work harder and longer for less money. Housing shortages occur not because there are too many people, but because there aren't enough houses. When social housing is sold off by ruling parties for political gain and the super rich are invited to buy up as many houses as they want, thereby also driving up the price of housing, a squeeze on the most vulnerable -domestic and immigrant alike- is inevitable. When the government solicits ultra-rich foreign businessmen by allowing them to claim non-dom status and pay less tax on the same earnings than everybody else, people naturally begin to feel alienated.
Furthermore, with social mobility lower now than it was in the 1960s, and the difference between skilled and non-skilled, in our almost entirely service sector oriented economy, means choosing between selling shares and cleaning toilets, opportunities become limited and discontent rife. Also a lack of any real interest in foreign cultures or languages amongst the native population is restricting their ability to adapt and seek new lives and fortunes abroad in neighbouring European countries, just as their French, German and Spanish counterparts are learning English and bringing their skills to the city.
Indeed, if the last 40 years of immigration legislation have taught us anything it is that the more you tighten the law surrounding immigration, the more immigrants you will attract. This was the case in 1962 when immigration surged following the ratification of a new Act, restricting immigration, as settled immigrants who might one day have returned home felt they had no choice but to bring their families over pemanently for fear they may never be able to return to Britain again should they ever leave.
To blame, therefore, housing shortages, job shortages and a failing public service on anything but economics is ludicrous and to blame it on immigrants themselves is nothing more than thinly veiled racism.
This is because 21st Century Britons find it increasingly difficult to reconcile their anxiety over increased immigration with their committment to racial equality. And this is because no clear solution to the problems associated with immigration has been presented that isn't intrinsically linked to race. This may seem unavoidable - after all, people who travel here from abroad are by definition foreign and, as native Brits living in British Overseas Territories already enjoy the same rights as us mainlanders, the likelihood is that immigrants will therefore be of a different nationality, religion, culture or race. However, things get more complicated when we consider migrants who have successfully settled here: Should they be forced to learn English; Are they a burden on public services; Are they planning to bring their families over? Suddenly we find ourselves in the sticky situation of addressing the rights of ethnic minorities in this country and the continuing influx of more and more of them into the country as one and the same question.
In 1968, however, when Enoch Powell made his Rivers of Blood speech, Britain was a very different place. Even if you ignore the debate over whether he was quoting a constituent or simply paraphrasing Far Right propaganda to support his argument, his position remained one which would be considered anathema to most people today. When he made his speech, he was arguing against anti-discrimination laws in housing and employment. He was arguing to protect an era where pubs commonly displayed signs reading: "No blacks, No dogs, No Irish". He was defending an old woman's (his alleged constituent) right to refuse to house black lodgers simply because they were black, depicting them as violent thugs for good measure. The result of Powell's speech was to energise the National Front and stoke fears amongst the white working class that the black man would one day have the whip hand over the white man. We still see similar sorts of racism today especially in tabloid newspapers. A poll of The Sun readers last year showed that on average they believed immigrants accounted for 25% of the population. Actually its just 8%.
My view is that the problems associated with immigration: housing shortages, strained public services, fierce competition for jobs etc are more examples of market failure than anything else. At the end of the day it is economics, and the British financial regulatory system to boot, that are screwing over the white working classes who claim to suffer most from the fallout of increased immigration. The CBI says businesses choose immigrants over domestic residents because they work harder and longer for less money. Housing shortages occur not because there are too many people, but because there aren't enough houses. When social housing is sold off by ruling parties for political gain and the super rich are invited to buy up as many houses as they want, thereby also driving up the price of housing, a squeeze on the most vulnerable -domestic and immigrant alike- is inevitable. When the government solicits ultra-rich foreign businessmen by allowing them to claim non-dom status and pay less tax on the same earnings than everybody else, people naturally begin to feel alienated.
Furthermore, with social mobility lower now than it was in the 1960s, and the difference between skilled and non-skilled, in our almost entirely service sector oriented economy, means choosing between selling shares and cleaning toilets, opportunities become limited and discontent rife. Also a lack of any real interest in foreign cultures or languages amongst the native population is restricting their ability to adapt and seek new lives and fortunes abroad in neighbouring European countries, just as their French, German and Spanish counterparts are learning English and bringing their skills to the city.
Indeed, if the last 40 years of immigration legislation have taught us anything it is that the more you tighten the law surrounding immigration, the more immigrants you will attract. This was the case in 1962 when immigration surged following the ratification of a new Act, restricting immigration, as settled immigrants who might one day have returned home felt they had no choice but to bring their families over pemanently for fear they may never be able to return to Britain again should they ever leave.
To blame, therefore, housing shortages, job shortages and a failing public service on anything but economics is ludicrous and to blame it on immigrants themselves is nothing more than thinly veiled racism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
