Labourhome - Back to the roots...

[Blogs] A selective history of appeasement

2008-11-23T07:09:21-05:00

Peter Oborne makes a strange argument that appointing Caroline Kennedy as US Ambassador would "insult Britain". He attacks her grandfather Joe Kennedy as pro-Hitler and appeasement as Ambassador in London from 1938 to 1940. Is the Daily Mail quite the right place to make that argument?

Oborne writes that "giving the post to a Kennedy would be an insult to Britain. Some of her family were long-standing supporters of IRA terrorism during the Irish troubles. Nor should it be forgotten that Caroline's grandfather, Joe, himself American ambassador to Britain in the Thirties, notoriously favoured Hitler over Churchill".

It is bizarre to judge Caroline Kennedy's merits on what her grandfather did as Ambassador seventy years ago.

But, if Oborne were right, it would surely then be the height of hypocrisy to use the Daily Mail to prosecute that argument.

Joe Kennedy was a staunch advocate of appeasement as Ambassador to London from 1938 to 1940. So, "notoriously", was Lord Rothermere.

Among the British elite, there was probably no more prominent, enthusiastic or valued public advocate of appeasement, European fascism and Mosley's British blackshirts than the founder and propreitor of the Daily Mail.

[Blogs] Ken Clarke takes pot shots at other Tories?

2008-11-22T13:54:40-05:00

See this interview in the Times: "He prefers dingy jazz cellars to swanky yachts. He loves birdwatching on the moors but he would never go shooting in plus-fours - “the idea would be hilarious”, he says."

That was a pot shot at George Osborne which was pictured looking daft in plus-fours.

“I can't be attacked for being a toff. I am very provincial and very suburban,” he says. “No one ever said I was too posh.”
.....If I go to the seaside it's because I have a grandchild but I don't actually go to the beach - I stay on the terrace, smoke a cigar and read.”

The sea-side business is a swipe at David Cameron, who had picturesque photos done of him and his wife at the beach in summer, before they packed up for their real holiday (a £21,000 a week cruise)

He admits that it could be difficult to resist a return to Government if he were offered the job of chancellor in a future Cameron administration
....Joining the front bench in opposition, though, has no appeal. “Dave asked me to be Leader of the House when he took over and I said no. I prefer to be a backbencher. It's tedious being an opposition spokesman. You have to do one subject - you can't suddenly say, ‘Sorry I'm not here next week, I'm in a forest somewhere in West Africa'.”

So now we know!

[Blogs] Save the police from the BNP

2008-11-22T10:55:44-05:00

Reading Hazel Blears's piece in the Guardian today, I think she is absolutely right that mainstream parties must redouble their efforts on grassroots action to block the rise of the BNP. However, by pushing ahead with direct elections for policing, an area extremists would love to gain control of, the government is leaving the door wide open to the BNP.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/22/bmp-membership-nick-griffin-decentralisation

It is bad enough that we now know a few rogue police officers are among the membership of the BNP, but it is surely a thousand times worse that we are handing them the opportunity to actually govern the entire police system. This is just one of the reasons why Labour in local government, and many activists and MPs are so opposed to the Home Office plans for direct elections.

Why all three national parties have followed one another down the blind alley of direct police elections is beyond me, it is opposed by all parties in local government.

The ongoing failure of the Home Office to consider the consequences of this policy will, I have no doubt, result in crime-fighting activity reducing in many areas, and in some places, we will see the BNP and other extreme voices taking control of the police.

Neither MPs nor councillors have a monopoly on democracy, but they are subject to a powerful electoral test, having to garner public support for a wide platform of policies. By isolating crime and policing as a narrow single issue, making it particularly susceptible to candidates seeking to fuel community tensions by whipping up fear of crime, the BNP and their kind are given a headstart.

Added to that, by complicating and dividing our existing local democracy, putting these new police representatives into direct conflict with the mandates of local councillors and MPs, voter turnout will inevitably be low, making the task easier still for the BNP. The BNP understand this absolutely, and are ready to seize power of policing in some of our most deprived and divided communities.

With public concerns about crime already high, and with the prospect of a tough economic situation driving the causes of crime, we must actively improve the ability of police, councillors and communities to work together to make our neighbourhoods safer, not limit our powers as these proposals do.

On behalf of Labour in local government, and in the interests of our communities, I have called on the government to listen to the clear majority of opposition in the party, and the wider police and local government sector, and ditch this divisive proposal for good.

We also oppose these proposals for a number of other reasons, and are concerned it could seriously damage the partnerships between police services, councils and communities which has delivered Labour's record on crime. Find out more at www.labourgroup.lga.gov.uk

[Blogs] Great article from Samuel Brittan in the FT about why Brown's critics are wrong

2008-11-21T16:40:12-05:00

Here's the link to the article Some quotes:

[One] objection is that an already high budget deficit will be pushed into the stratosphere by the extra borrowing. This is psychologically the most difficult hurdle. Too few people understand that a government’s budget is not like a family’s or a company’s. It is precisely when the private sector is cutting down and saving that the government needs to spend more as an offset to maintain a reasonable level of total expenditure in the economy.

The most plausible argument against a fiscal stimulus is that by the time it takes effect, the economy will be in a boom and the effect will be destabilising. This may be valid for attempts to smooth out normal business cycles, but hardly for a possibly persistent slump.

....

“Is there not a danger of a run on sterling?” ask Tory Bourbons. Even they should by now realise that the exchange rate is a price and not a virility symbol. Indeed, if you think it important to narrow the current balance of payments deficit then sterling depreciation is needed. True, too big a fall in the pound sustained too long could bring back import-led inflation. But it is extremely uncertain how large such a feedback would be in current recessionary conditions. I was one of those taken by surprise by the smallness of the impact when sterling was forced out of the exchange rate mechanism in the recession conditions of 1992.

I liked the reference to to "Tory Bourbons". The Bourbons of course presided over France before the Revolution, and were so inflexible in their thinking, they couldn't see what was coming...

Labour should pinch the phrase (and perhaps get Steve Bell to make a cartoon for the next party political broadcast. I rather liked this recent one.

[Blogs] Certificate of Lawfulness (awfulness)

2008-11-21T15:22:45-05:00

Certificate of Lawfulness being used by property developers to develop residential care homes for up to 6 people recovering from mental ill health without having to go through the proper channels of obtaining planning permission from the local council and without the residents in the area where these places will be located being allowed to have their say in these developments such as security/safety issues, level of mental ill health etc.

Have any readers come up against Certificate of Lawfulness being used by property developers to develop property into residential care homes for up to 6 people recovering from mental ill heatlh in their neighbourhood? I would like to see this law tightened up so that property developers must have to get planning permission if they want to develop a residential home(s)into a home for people recovering from mental ill health. Two such homes have now been developed from two terraced properties, with a family terraced home in the middle, in our area. In spite of 133 signatures of protest against these two developments by the residents on our road the developments were allowed to go through because they had been proposed as a Certificate of Lawfulness. Therefore, the residents on this street who will be affected by these two developments were effectively gagged and not allowed to have any say so whatsoever about these two developments. This developer has two other similar care homes within a hundred yards from our street. I have been told that landlords get £500 per person per week by the Council to house people with mental health issues. We the ratepayers are paying for this and we should be allowed to have our say re these developments. How long before this property developer buys the house in the middle of these two care homes? This is capitalism at its best! This is not 'Care in the Community', this is big business. I have contacted various organisations but no one is interested in this story or this law. Is there anyone I can contact to try to get this law tightened up or at least to let the general public know about it? Please advise.

[Blogs] A fair presumption

2008-11-21T12:24:31-05:00

This week there has been a torrent of news and comment opposing the Prime Minister's preference of a system of presumed consent for organ donation. The source is unclear but there is undoubtedly a media campaign against the opt-out system, based on the recommendations of the Government's Organ Donation Taskforce, which has attracted little or no balancing opinion. The Prime Minister's preference, opposed by the taskforce, is for a system known as "soft" presumed consent. This means that people opt-out by registering if they do not want to donate their organs after death. Additionally, their family would be asked if they knew of any unregistered objection before any transplant took place. Even if the family knew of no unregistered objection but were excessively distressed by organ donation, this "soft" system would allow the family's well-being to be taken into account. Soft presumed consent would not make another Alder Hey possible. No-one's organs could legally be removed in secrecy.

But why should we move to an opt-out system? Do we have any collective obligation to those hundreds of people who die each year while waiting for organs or to those adults and children enduring invasive treatments month after month with only a thread of hope? Frankly, it's not about our obligations, it's about our will. Opinion polls suggest that up to 90% of British people are willing to help a stranger in need by donating their organs at death, yet only about 26% have signed the donor register. And this gap is fully understandable. Of the list of things to do that we all carry in our heads, signing the donor register will never be the most urgent task. But more fundamentally, the act of doing so requires us, for a moment, to consider our own mortality; a task even more challenging if a person sensibly decides to discuss his or her decision with their family so that they are aware of the preference.

Given the overwhelming support for donation, it is more than reasonable for a clinician to presume that a deceased person consents. Providing a dissent register actually enables people to express their objection to donation far more clearly than the current system, which provides no such opportunity. At the moment, a clinician will talk to a family about their lost loved-one's preference at the very worst time, shortly after death. In the absence of any expressed preference, the family response will often reflect that if their loved-one felt strongly about it, they would have signed the donor register. This default to the status quo enables families to avoid making a difficult decision at a difficult time. If a dissent register existed, families would have a clear guide that if their loved one felt strongly against donation, they would have signed that register – and this would ensure that, according to the opinion polls, far more people's wishes were conformed to after their deaths.

Anecdotal evidence shows that when asked, many families support donation, after initially refusing, once they have had time to process their own emotions and consider the deceased's attitude towards donation. Sadly, the nature of donation means that this is too late. Those families who do consent to the donation of their loved-ones' organs often say that it has helped them with the grieving process, knowing that some good has come from the death of their son, daughter, spouse or brother.

There are countries that operate a "hard" system of presumed consent. If you die on holiday in Austria, you are likely to have your organs whipped out without discussion before your body is shipped back. There are countries where you are placed at the bottom of the waiting list to receive an organ if you have not previously been on the donation register. There are countries where a family receives a discount on medical bills if a deceased relative donates their organs.

The Government is not proposing anything coercive or ethically suspect. Neither is there a suggestion that soft presumed consent alone is the answer – we also need improved infrastructure and investment in transplant co-ordinators. There would also be safeguards to ensure that the system did not take advantage of minors and people with limited capacity to make such decisions.

But presumed consent – the opt-out system – is the only proposal that respects the wishes of the majority of British people after their deaths. Respecting patients wishes after their death must be the most ethical position.

[Blogs] The BNP problem IS Labour's problem

2008-11-20T07:48:19-05:00

I thought it would be interesting to overlay a map of constituencies (and their MP's party affiliation) with a heat-map of the BNP's membership list.*

I don't know if I'm surprised by the result...I am however interested in everyone's thoughts on this.

Original heatmap from Ben Charlton

*There are concerns that it may be a marketing list rather than a wholly accurate membership list.