It’s bad, but not that bad….

Last night’s European elections were certainly dramatic. It’s difficult to say which is more shocking: the election of 2 BNP members or the incredible collapse of the Labour vote. I think that people were expecting the Labour meltdown as the government has been lurching from crisis to crisis for months. The apparent “rise” of the BNP seems to have caused the most amazement.

The election of any far-right party candidate is a worrying event. But I’m not sure it’s as bad as the immediate reaction in the press makes out for the following reasons:

1. The BNP polled less votes in the Yorkshire/Humber and North West regions in 2009 that in 2005. They only gained seats because so many Labour voters stayed at home. This wasn’t a big rush towards the far-right.

2. The BNP got 6% nationally on a low 34% turnout. That’s only about 2% of the population.

3. The BNP did a good job of re-spinning their image in some areas and jumping on the anti-establishment bandwagon. They still only got 6%. The media and other parties will be wiser now. Not all of those who voted for the BNP will have realised what they stand for and might not share all their racist views.

4. I don’t think there is such a big surge in racist views as it might seem. There have been people with different opinions all along. A minority of people hold different levels of views that could be regarded as racist. Our media and politicians are ultra-aware of not being seen as racist and so tolerant people might not be aware of the opinions of some people. All that has happened is the views are now visible in the form of votes.

What worries me more is some of the areas where the BNP got their seats from. Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham all polled around 17% for the BNP. I actually predicted that South Yorkshire might be good ground for the BNP last week. There has been a steady flow of stories in the region about immigration and asylum seekers over the last few years. I was certainly aware of a small but visible vein of racist views in the area when I grew up there. I have yet to live in an area where these views can be so widely and openly expressed. It might not have aggressive intent, but it is there and acknowledged by many people.

These are areas that have struggled to recover from the demise of the traditional industries and that have a lot of social deprivation. Neither the Conservative nor the Labour Governments have effectively addressed the problems of these and similar areas. We have seen the BNP target these kind of areas before with some success. Areas that have high unemployment and whose local councils struggle to meet the needs of local people. Political parties tend to compete for the support of middle class voters in more marginal constituencies. They do this because the middle classes tend to vote more often and are more likely to change their vote. Labour have been frequently accused of taking the votes of the working class electors for granted, especially in the traditional rock-solid safe Labour seats. Whether this is the case or not is a different matter. They certainly seem to direct all their spin and presentation on charming the middle classes.

It’s easy to see why people in poorer areas can become resentful to the perceived side-lining of their problems. The scenes of the ruling classes filling their pockets in the expenses scandal cannot have helped. This is where the BNP come in, playing on anger and fear by providing a scapegoat – non-whites. There may well be imbalances in temporary immigrations for some jobs, but studies have shown that it is not ethnic minorities that are making things worse for working class whites – the working classes suffer from discrimination as a group because of their class. Working class children find it harder to get into universities and generations of exclusion can create different expectations.The BNP creates myths that people in ethnic minorites are looked after better than whites that just aren’t true.

So who is to blame for the BNP getting elected? Mainstream politicians for ignoring the fears of the working class? People who didn’t vote? The Labour government? Neglect of former industrial areas? MP’s and their expenses? The BNP? perhaps all of these. But let’s not get carried away, it’s bad, but not that bad.

Gobsmacked!

I nearly dropped my copy of the Guardian onto the train-tracks today. Tony Blair has been awarded a $1m prize for his “international relations work”. It’s difficult to know what to say when you read something like that. The man who helped George Bush into an illegal war that killed many, many people? Who twisted and pulled our democratic system to stretching point in order to launch the war. Tony Blair?! The man who severely damaged the trust of the Muslim world in western power?

I’m awaiting news of George Bush getting an award for eloquent public speaking next….

What war?

Quite a few of the recent opinion polls show New labour has slumped to below 30% in the opinion polls since the MP’s expenses scandal. Brown was already doing badly in many polls thanks to the state of the UK economy and his part in making Britain vulnerable to a collapse in the financial markets. It seems highly likely that New Labour will be trounced at the next general Election and the upcoming Euro and local elections.

While it is clear that Brown did little (if anything) to reform parliament and how MP’s are funded it would be a shame if he was booted out of office for this alone. Even taking into account the damage he has done to the economy and the housing market, by his blind faith in the financial institutions, I would be frustrated if he was punished just for this piece of shoddy policy.

Let us not forget the shameful and illegal war in Iraq that this Government led us into by blindly doing George Bush’s bidding. Let us not forget the war New Labour manipulated parliament in to getting this war under way. Let us not forget that the UN reported that torture actually increased after the war. Let us not forget the estimated 1.5m people who marched against the war and who were patronised and ignored by Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and the New Labour government. let us not forget the many, many people who died in this war.

I hope that these facts are not forgotten in the elections and that there is a reckoning for what this Government has done.

MP’s see a bandwagon and attempt to jump on it…

One of the worst aspects of the MP’s expenses scandal is the sight of many MPs jumping aboard the bandwagon and stating that the system must be reformed. Where were they all when the votes were taken in parliament to change the system? Let us not forget that most MP’s voted to prevent their expenses being made public in recent years (all the Lib Dem MP’s voted for public disclosure) or voted against a committee recommendation to open their expenses up to independent audit like all other public bodies (all the Lib Dem MPs supported the recommendations). Look how many MPs were absent from the votes and match them up with those who had embarassing expense claims.

It’s maddening to see David Cameron and the Tories try to put themselves across as the party of reform on this issue when two thirds of them voted against outside audit….

Send them to Argos!

Quite a lot has happened since my last post on MP’s expenses. The Daily Telegraph has published the details of all MP’s expenses earlier than they were due to be released and the public outcry has been loud and clear. Some are talking about police investigations or even talking about a General Election on the issue.

MP’s don’t get a fantastic salary for what they do and a case could be made for increasing their salary. I have also heard that some MP’s pay part of their salary to cover the basic costs of their job. However, some of the revealed claims are obscene and quite a few MP’s should be ashamed of themselves. Expenses are meant to compensate your reasonable costs. Cleaning a moat is NOT reasonable! Paying your mortgage when you finished paying it years ago is NOT reasonable! Paying the cost of modest accommodation in London would be fine. But to allow the MP to profit from this is obscene.

It shows MP’s, as a body of people, as out of touch and with few moral scruples. However, quite a lot of only claimed small and reasonable amounts and we should not tar them all with the same brush. Those who claimed acceptable and understandable expenses should be praised so that we create a positive incentive in the future.

When a vulnerable person leaves hospital or care, they can frequently qualify for a Community Care Grant that pays for the basic necessities for setting up a home. The items should be the basic needed for the job and not extravagant. One of the unwritten rules or understandings in making the claims is that people choose items (fridge, furniture etc) from something like the Argos catalogue. We should do the same for MP’s. If they need a second home in the capital it should be basic and they should not profit from it’s sale. They should also be given a copy of the Argos catalogue (or similar) and given an expenses limit. All bought goods could be returned to the state after they are no longer needed.

Call for criminal investigation

David Howarth has called for a full-scale criminal investigation into the alleged police assault that might have led to a man dieing.

Other blogs on the subject from Lib Dem voice

Police filmed assaulting man who died

The Guardian obtained footage of an apparent assault on Ian Tomlinson during the G20 protests. The information in the press and media indicate that Mr Tomlinson was not involved in the protests, was not challenging the police and was assaulted in an unprovoked attack. ITN report

We all know that major events like the G20 meeting frequently attract protests in which wide-scale damage to property occurs. We also know that the police often become the target of provocation by a small minority of protesters, with bottles and other objects being thrown at them. The police have an unenviable job of keeping the peace and preventing violence in these situations.

No all the facts are known yet and a full investigation is needed. The incident appears to show a police officer unhindered by any restraints and confident that what he does will be supported by the authorities. What is known is that many people are becoming angry at a perceived pattern of abuse of power that the public is becoming less and less tolerant of.

Since the September 11th attacks, the UK government has steadily handed over more and more powers to the police in the name of fighting terrorism. Many of the laws they have created give wide discretion to the police to act as they see fit. We regularly see stories in the media of protests banned or limited under police powers, of local authorities using powers created to stop organised crime and terrorism for relatively minor offences and people arrested by the police under suspicion of terrorist offences and released without charge. Only recently the police were found to be acting incorrectly in preventing the press from taking photographs during the protests – We were wrong, says the met.

I believe that New Labour under Blair and now Brown have been steadily removing important checks and balances in the way power is restrained. They have given powers to enforcement agencies that are too indiscriminate and with inadequate limits. Little thought seems to have been given on how these powers can be monitored for abuse and New Labour’s assumption appears to be that all powers will be used wisely and in the public interest. I think that they have done this for two reasons; firstly to appear tough and decisive to the right-wing popular media in order to secure voters who might think about voting Conservative; and because their leaders have found it difficult to shake off their control-freak, authoritarian mentality. Both of these factors were born of the strong drive not to repeat the failures of the past where Labour has been portrayed as split and unable to control their own party.

For years we have seen the Government steamroller opposition and criticism to the destruction of liberties, claiming that opponents are too soft, naive or liberal. The culture they have engendered have created a fertile breeding ground for abuses of power. In every organisation there are people who go too far and take matters into their own hands, and I’m sure that most police officers generally work hard to uphold the law and protect the public. But if you keep drafting illiberal laws with inadequate restraints, you provide an excuse for those few bad apples that bring shame upon their colleagues.

Tax-payers pay for MP’s homes

Yet more sleazy stories are surfacing in the press – Hoon caught up in new claims row, Beckett in second home row and public backlash against MP’s expenses.

Government after Government have colluded in this farce, giving MP’s much more freedom to spend out money that other professions would have. Attempts at reforming the system have been blocked time and time again by the majority of MP’s. It’s about time that they had independent monitoring and rule-making so that trust can be restored. I’m sure many MP’s are honest people and that they are working within the current rules. But the apparent lack of awareness by some powerful politicians of how this will look to others is staggering. Just like benefit cheats who prosper in a sub-culture where it is seen as okay to do so, MP’s can exist in a cocooned world where they justify expenses that seem obscene to the general public.

Here’s an interesting idea for reforming second home expenses. I think it could be one of several options for improving the system.

Home Secretary’s adult film incident…

Jacqui Smith’s adult film bill The expenses fiasco just goes on and on. I think that she might now see why privacy is a good thing. We don’t need to know what her and her husband get up to.

MP’s Expenses and Public Trust

Yet again, MP’s and their expenses are in the public eye. We seem to be experiencing a steady drip of stories that corrode the trust that people have in their politicians. Tony McNulty is alleged to have claimed £60,000 of taxpayer money (our money) to pay for his second home, despite living near to Westminster. It appears that he has not broken any rules or laws, but the general view in the media (and I guess in the country) seems to be that what he did was against the spirit of the rules. McNulty’s Expenses

MP’s and ministers often work long hours and going back to their constituency home everyday is not always feasible. But for MP’s living in London it seems unfair that they can claim so much money for a second home. Many workers in London commute across the city and beyond in order to work. A lot of these will work long hours at anti-social times and they have to brave London Transport or pay for a taxi. This link London MPs shows which MP’s claim for the second home allowance in London. I note that none of the Lib Dem MP’s in the capital claim for a second home. There also seems to be a big variation in what nearby MP’s claim. Expenses variation

it’s about time that MP’s agreed a cross-party, root and branch reform of their expenses system that is clear, fair and transparent. I’m sure many employees have experienced the many obstacles to claiming back expenses in their work, but MP’s appear to be given a fairly free-rein on expenses.