Showing posts with label Parliament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Parliament. Show all posts

Monday, October 29, 2018

Our November Discussion Meeting

       

               DRONFIELD LABOUR PARTY DISCUSSION MEETING


TOPIC :           THE LABOUR PARTY AND BREXIT

SPEAKER :      PAUL BLOMFIELD MP, SHADOW BREXIT MINISTER

TIME :              8pm to 9.15pm.

DATE :            SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 11th

VENUE :         CONTACT CLUB, SNAPE HILL LANE, DRONFIELD, S18 2GJ.

Image result for Paul Blomfield

Since 2010 Paul has been the Labour MP for Sheffield Central. Increasing his majority from only 165 to a massive 27,748 in two successive contests. He is one of Labour's Shadow Brexit Ministers (for Exiting the European Union) working closely with Labour's main spokesperson on the issue - Keir Starmer. There is an important link here to a key recent article he wrote on the Brexit situation -  https://www.paulblomfield.co.uk/european_union/

He was Chair of the Sheffield District Labour Party from 1993 to 2009. Then when he initially moved to parliament he became the Private Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Leader of the Commons. A position which gives him a good understanding of the parliamentary processes relevant to any form of Brexit Procedures. He was also the Private Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Foreign Secretary.

He was named Citizens' Advice MP of the Year in 2014 for his work on the regulation of payday lenders and is Secretary of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Debt and Personal Finance. He is also Secretary of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Universities and Chair of the All-Party Group for Students.


Saturday, February 24, 2018

Our March Discussion Meeting

TOPIC :         AN ECONOMY THAT SERVES THE MANY NOT THE FEW.
                      -  How Labour’s economic policy could transform the country.
 
SPEAKER :  CHRIS PEACE

TIME :          8pm to 9.15pm

DATE :         SUNDAY, 11th MARCH

VENUE :      CONTACT CLUB, SNAPE HILL LANE, DRONFIELD S18 2GT

Chris Peace is our recently adopted Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for North East Derbyshire. In the short period since her election she has been hyper active in the Constituency. She has already met with Jeremy Corbyn and discussed NE Derbyshire and he has committed to visiting us soon. She is a Labour Councillor  on the Sheffield City Council for the Gleadless Valley Ward and lives in easy reach of the NE Derbyshire Constituency, making full use of the opportunities which that provides. She is also fully involved in the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign. A legal aid lawyer until recently, Chris also campaigns for Youth Justice and better Access to Justice for all.

The photo below was taken immediately after her selection -
    Image may contain: 4 people, people smiling, people standing, crowd and outdoor

Wednesday, June 3, 2015

JUNE DISCUSSION MEETING

            DRONFIELD LABOUR PARTY DISCUSSION MEETING

TOPIC  :          THE FUTURE FOR THE LABOUR PARTY

TIME :             8pm to 9.15pm

DATE :            SUNDAY, 21 JUNE 2015
(A week later than usual.)

VENUE :         CONTACT CLUB, SNAPE HILL LANE, DRONFIELD



I WILL PROVIDE A VERY SHORT INTRODUCTION TO THE TOPIC.

WE WILL THEN QUICKLY ENTER INTO DEBATE ON KEY ISSUES CURRENTLY FACING THE LABOUR PARTY, SUCH AS -

(1) THE LEADERSHIP AND DEPUTY LEADERSHIP OF THE LABOUR PARTY.  HOW DO WE VIEW THE CONTESTANTS? (Link here, this item has relevance to this question.)


(2) HOW SHOULD LABOUR RESPOND TO GOVERNMENT POLICIES?

(3) WHAT SHOULD BE LABOUR'S OVERALL "DIRECTION OF TRAVEL" AND ITS KEY  POLICIES?

(4) HOW CAN WE SEEK TO INFLUENCE THESE MATTERS ?

                                                                                                            HARRY BARNES.
 

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

May Discussion Meeting


                 DRONFIELD LABOUR PARTY DISCUSSION MEETING



TOPIC:                    HOW CAN LABOUR DELIVER BETTER POLITICS?

SPEAKER:              EMMA HODDINOTT


TIME:                      8pm to 9.15pm.

DATE:                     SUNDAY 4th MAY, 2014

VENUE:                  CONTACT CLUB, SNAPE HILL LANE,
                                 DRONFIELD


 emma hoddinott



Emma is a member of Labour's National Policy Forum and serves on the Committee which has produced the key Consultative Document "Better Politics". This document can be found here. She will explain the work of her Committee and outline the proposals it is considering. The meeting will offer an opportunity to influence the development of ideas which will come to shape Labour's General Election Manifesto in 2015. A summary of the range of Labour's full list of eight consultative documents can be found here.

Emma is a Labour Councillor on the Rotherham Metropolitan Borough and represents the Wickersley Ward.

Saturday, December 14, 2013

Sign Up

I just signed the petition "Parliament: Debate UK hunger and rise in foodbank use #jackspetition" on Change.org. It's important. Will you sign it too? Here's the link to click onto :
http://www.change.org/petitions/parliament-debate-uk-hunger-and-rise-in-foodbank-use-jackspetition?share_id=FcMJfAXkWi&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition Thanks, Harry Barnes.

Friday, August 30, 2013

Parliamentary Arithmetic


PowerShift

How many MPs failed to either turn up or otherwise not to enter the division lobby yesterday in the vote that led to the defeat of the Government?

The vote was 285 to 272,  giving a total of 557 votes. To these, eight others need to be taken into account. There are four in the Speaker's team, who don't by convention vote. Then each side puts in two tellers, who count the votes of other MPs' as they come out of the division lobbies. The figure then goes up to 565, except that a Conservative and a Liberal entered both lobbies as a means of exercising positive abstentions. The calculation then goes back down to 563.  With a total of 650 MPs this leaves 87 to be accounted for. Three of these were Government Ministers. Ken Clarke missed the vote as he was away for "family reasons". Then Justine Greening (Secretary of State for International Development) and Mark Simmonds (Parliamentary Under Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs) were together in a meeting in the parliament building, but did not hear the division bells. On the other hand they should have been aware that votes from 10 pm are a standard procedure on major issues when the Commons has commenced at 2.30 pm. That leaves us now with 84 other MPs to be accounted for. (Update 23.35 hours, 30 August : The Daily Telegraph now claim that in "total, including Liberal Democrats and a Downing Street adviser, 10 members of the Government are recorded as not having voted" -  numbers of whom claim to have been excused the whip and some who face the sack.) 

84 missing MPs is almost 13% of the total. It is a lot to be missing for a crucial vote. There are a number of possible explanations for absences. First, some could have decided to abstain - either being in the Commons at the time of the vote or being elsewhere. Some could have been "paired", where a Government and an Opposition MP have an agreement sanctioned by the whips not to vote on various items, so their votes will normally cancel each other out. It normally allows MPs to be away from parliament. But with 49 Government supporters coming to defying their whips, it is odd for people to be excused whipping arrangements - unless the whips felt that the people concerned were unreliable and might rebel, or they just had no idea what was going to happen. August is also a bad time for a Government to recall parliament, unless their whips are pro-active. Given the parliamentary time-table and constituency commitments it is the best time in the year for MPs to take a holiday break. With children still on school holidays, some MPs could be overseas with their families. What efforts did their whips make to contact them and pressurize them to turn up? Given the result, the Government whips failed to deliver in a startling fashion. Had they warned Cameron of the dangers of defeat? If not why not? Did he ignore such warnings? After the defeat of the Government. will the opposition now put forward a motion of no-confidence in the Government? If this was lost it would trigger either the appointment of a new Prime Minister or a General Election.

Look for changes in the Government team. There are no less then 17 of them in the whips office. They are headed by Sir George Young, who is far too kind a man for such a job. I bet they return to having a Rottweiler.

Also see here about the MP whose move ten years ago paved the way for yesterday's vote.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Clay Cross - 90 Continuous Years With Labour


 
It is a 90th Anniversary. Since 15 November 1922, Clay Cross has been represented in parliament by only Labour MPs. Since 1950, it has been part of the North East Derbyshire Constituency and the MPs (in turn) have been Henry White, Tom Swain, Ray Ellis, myself and currently Natascha Engel. Yet prior to the 1950 General Election, Clay Cross was part of the Constituency which bore its name. Below I give a synopsis of that Constituency's Labour Parliamentary History.

 The Clay Cross Parliamentary Constituency operated from 1918 until the time of the 1950 General Election. It covered much of what are currently the southern areas of both the North East Derbyshire and Bolsover Constituencies. In those days it was an area in which coal mining abounded.

Yet although the Constituency was dominated by the miners’ vote and the Derbyshire Miners' Association (DMA) was a powerful influence in the area, out of the six different Labour candidates it ran for parliament at various elections, only two of these were miners. The absence of miners as Labour candidates in parliamentary contests in 1922, 1923, 1924, 1929, 1931, 1933. 1935 and 1936 (when four different Labour candidates ran) showed an independence of mind amongst local miners from the pressures of the leadership of the DMA. This was aided by the influences of a socialist-inclined local Methodism and by left-wing activists in the Independent Labour Party (ILP) in areas such as Bolsover. The ILP, however, went on to disaffiliate from the Labour Party in 1932. A further factor leading to the period in which miners' were not run as candidates, is that Clay Cross became one of the safest Labour seats in the country. It, therefore, attracted the interest of leading figures at national level in the Labour Party.

The first election in the Clay Cross Constituency in 1918 followed a conventional pattern for an area dominated by the DMA. . Fred Hall, the Labour candidate was a leading official of the DMA, who eventually served for 29 years on the national executive committee of its parent body, the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. He was, however, the only Labour candidate for the Clay Cross Constituency who ever failed to win the seat. He lost by 1,221 to a Liberal who had Conservative backing. For the Conservatives and Liberals who had been the larger elements of the 1915-18 War-time Coalition, had joined into a deal aimed at not running candidates against each other. 

When Fred Hall dropped out of standing for the seat just prior to the 1922 General Election, Charlie Duncan was selected in his place. He had helped to found the Workers’ Union who had been involved in the birth of the Labour Party and represented unskilled workers. He had been the Labour MP for Barrow-in-Furness from 1906 to 1918 and had spells as both Whip and Secretary for the Parliamentary Labour Party. He won the elections in Clay Cross in 1922, 1923, 1924, 1929 and 1931. His final success revealed how Labour had built up the seat. The 1931 election was held following the collapse of the minority Labour Government in the middle of a major financial crisis, with Ramsay MacDonald its leader defecting to run a National Government. Labour’s position at the subsequent General Election collapsed from 288 to 52 seats, yet Labour held Clay Cross by almost 10,000 votes. A massive Labour majority in the adverse circumstances of the time. 

When Charlie Duncan died in 1933, Clay Cross adopted Arthur Henderson as their candidate. Known as “Uncle Arthur” he was a huge figure in the early history of the Labour Party. He was leader of the Labour Party from 1908 to 1910 (with another spell at the start of the First World War). He served as Labour’s first Cabinet Minister in the First World War Coalition Government from 1915 to 1917, resigning when his idea for an international conference on the war was voted down by the rest of the cabinet. He helped shape the pre-Blairite structure of the Labour Party as its General Secretary, a post he held from 1912 to 1935. He was Home Secretary in the first Minority Labour Government of 1924 and Foreign Secretary from 1929-31. When MacDonald defected Henderson took over as Labour's temporary leader until 1932, but gave up the position because he had by then lost his parliamentary seat. Clay Cross provided his avenue back into Labour’s parliamentary politics. In the by-election one of his opponents was Harry Pollitt the General Secretary of the Communist Party who lost his deposit with 10.8% of the votes to Henderson’s 69.3%. So there was a total left-wing vote of over 80%. Whilst he was MP for Clay Cross, Henderson went on to receive the Nobel Peace Prize and was held in high regard, it being claimed that “no-one ever sought his help in vain"*. He died in 1935.

At the subsequent General election, Clay Cross ran the 35 year old Alfred Holland who was a local Methodist. But within 10 months he was stricken with spinal meningitis and died shortly afterwards.

A by-election in 1936 led to the Clay Cross Labour Party running its fourth candidate in five years. George Ridley had been on the Executive of the Railway Clerk’s Association since 1909. He was seen as “becoming the Labour Party’s leading pamphleteer*”. In 1944 he also died whilst still an MP.

After 26 years, Clay Cross once more adopted a Derbyshire Miners’ Candidate in Harold Neal the area’s Vice President, who went on to become Secretary of the Miners’ group of MPs in parliament. There was a war-time pact amongst Churchill’s Coalition partners at the time, which covered the Labour Party. This amounted to a deal not to run candidates against coalition partners in by-elections. So only two independent candidates stood against Neal. One ran as a “Workers Anti-Fascist” and the other as an “Independent Progressive”. Neal got 76.3% of the votes. When the war ended, he improved his position by taking 82.1% of the votes in opposition to a Conservative.

When the boundaries were redrawn and the Clay Cross seat was absorbed into other areas, Harold Neal became the Labour MP for Bolsover. He had a period as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fuel and Power in 1951 and retired as MP in 1970 to be replaced by Dennis Skinner who was the Chair of NE Derbyshire Labour Party, President of the DMA and also an active member of the Clay Cross Labour Party.

A souvenir brochure published by the Clay Cross Divisional Labour Party in 1948 pointed out Labour’s dominance in the area, stating that there were “46 Local Government Seats (exclusive of Parish Councils) within the Constituency : of these 40 are held by Labour members. In addition, there are 16 Parish Councils : in the majority of cases we have 100 per cent representation”*. ( * = The two earlier quotations are also taken from this souvenir brochure.)

Those were the days.

Friday, October 26, 2012

From Today's Guardian : Letter To The Editor



 

Fallout from the Scottish referendum


One of the strongest arguments for giving the vote to 16-year-olds, as proposed in Scotland (Editorial, 22 October), is that it is an essential step towards tackling voter under-registration. The Electoral Commission has reported that at least 6 million people are missing from electoral registers. Yet now we see that the under-registration figure is likely to be larger than this, as census details have just been revealed which show that 1.57 million people in England and Wales have second addresses and this will entitle many of them to double registration. If, say, 1 million throughout the UK have done this, that means that under-registration is then over the 7 million mark.With votes at 16, the names of "attainers" would be included on registers when they were 15, showing the dates of their coming birthdays and their then entitlement to vote. If registration for these first-time voters took place via their schools, an initial registration of almost 100% could be achieved. A proactive registration system could then be put in place to ensure that most of those who initially registered did not later in life slip through the net.

As under-registration is high among the 18-25 age group, the poor, the rootless and ethnic minorities, this leads to a situation where the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies are seriously distorted. A system of initial registration via schools, with an associated and imaginative educational programme, could start to correct this imbalance and develop a commitment among young people to use and improve the democratic process. Or are we going to leave it all to Alex Salmond?

Harry Barnes
Dronfield, Derbyshire

Thursday, September 20, 2012

"The Wider Case For Constitutional Reform" by Ken Curran



The cause of our present economic crisis has its roots in a number of areas. Whilst I subscribe to the opinion that the main factor is the very nature of modern capitalism, there is another key matter to consider. If we had a very different form of parliamentary system where the power of the executive was both defused and diminished, it is possible that the current crisis would have been averted. We  need far more democratic forms of government. In what follows, I will argue that a Written Constitution and provisions for devolved Government in deprived areas such as the North would assist us in pursuing the type of political awakening I am seeking. These are not panaceas by themselves, but they offer a better framework for a democratic future than anything in today's sterile arrangements. But they must be pursued not just as constitutional tinkering, but as clear avenues for achieving economic and social justice.   

In 2007 a number of economic commentators began expressing concerns over the behavior of the Sub Prime Market in America. A leading British economics writer, Larry Elliott of the Guardian (along with Dan Atkinson) had a book published called "Fantasy Island". He was referring to the United Kingdom. The front cover had Tony Blair in a deck chair on a tropical island enjoying a fancy drink and sunning himself, whilst behind him there is a huge storm and everything is collapsing.  Whether Tony and Gordon Brown (who is clinging onto a palm tree as a tsunami is about to engulf the fantasy island) were deliberately misleading parliament and the country over the true state of the economy is history and may never be fully established. Anyone who heard the infamous Mansion House speech of Chancellor Brown could be in no doubt that they were listening to a man (who represents one of the poorest constituencies in Scotland) extolling the virtues of the City of London. Gordon Brown had fallen in love with Capitalism and its London manipulators. Blair and Brown were apparently oblivious of the pending storm. Within three weeks of Gordon's speech, the alarm bells were ringing over the collapse of Fannie Mae on the US West Coast, exactly where Larry Elliot had forecast it would. Which begs the question. How can a newspaper's economist forecast what was going wrong and accurately state where the economic collapse would occur, when both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor were oblivious of the pending doom?

Northern Rock and the Icelandic Government were the next to fall. By then, Gordon Brown realised that something was wrong. Larry Elliott was not the only one who suspected that all was not well with the economy. I know a good number of ordinary people who couldn't make sense of our boom in house prices during the early years of this century. Little did we realise that this was due to illegal manipulation of the market to boost the profits of the banks. Which begs a further question. How was it that ordinary people questioning the ever rising value of houses, never led on to politicians searching out the reason for this phenomena? Of course, it wasn't a phenomena at all. It was a big scam! Even as all was falling around Gordon Brown and he was struggling to manage the chaos across the world as the British economy headed for the buffers, both Cameron and Osborne (the Laurel and Hardy of British politics) were also oblivious to what was happening. Their remedy was to continue to call for further relaxations of controls upon businesses, plus reductions in public spending.

Over the past thirty years, the percentage of people entitled to vote has been in decline. The underlying truth is that people feel unrepresented by their very representatives. There is little at stake for them in the representative process.  The influence of Capital on Government is weakening democracy. Money versus the People. Politicians seduced by Business. The City of London and its Finance is the cancer at the heart of British Democracy. Like an ancient army raping everything of value, Capitalism marches on consuming all before it and laying to waste where it has been. It is imperative that we reform our political system to ensure that we protect humanity from the rapacious and greedy system which currently is destroying everything which our parents and grandparents strove for.  Currently the new technology is being used to enslave and indoctrinate the people in order to create a malleable and docile people under the control of the Corporate State. Fascism is not dead!

We must revive the spirit of the founders of Chartism. If not for our sake, but for that of our children and grandchildren.

We still try to govern the United Kingdom in the 21st Century using the protocols and rules of a bye-gone age. I am sure that the Government's constitutional lawyers must constantly struggle with the many varied interpretations which exist of Magna Carta, trying as best they can to link the relevance of modern day issues with a document written in order to resolve conflicts of interests between the King and Norman Barons in the 13th Century. It was not written with the interests of the wider population in mind. Bearing in mind the passage of time since the Great Charter was written, the case for Constitutional Reform is self evident. Britain must be the only country in the world without a written constitution. Most countries in the West have constitutions written in a single and accessible document, which clearly define rights and responsibilities for the governed and their governments. The Magna Carta makes no mention of either women or children, for like the peasants and yeomen of the day, they were held to be of no account. The references in Magna Carta to Peers originally referred to Barons, yet by a clever devise of political and legal expedience this is now taken to mean everyone. When one considers the huge changes taking place across the world, these contrast with the semi feudal rules and customs which still influence our decisions. Our arrangements are quaint, out-of-date, or in modern parlance "not fit for purpose". When the Magna Carta was originally signed and sealed, all rights to award titles, awards and appointments rested with the Crown. Over time all of this patronage has passed to the Prime Minister. This has put a huge amount of power into the hands of whoever holds this office. We should remember that whilst the electorate participate in electing individual Members of Parliament, they are never directly involved in choosing the Government or the Prime Minister. In normal circumstances, whoever is King or Queen uses historical protocol to invite the Leader of the Party with the largest number of House of Commons members, to form a Government. The amount of power at the centre of our political system is unhealthy. We need to bear in mind that much of our system is not controlled by laws which are on the Statute Book, but by age old practices, with a good deal of nods and winks.

This is hardly a way for a democracy to work in the here and now. To my own knowledge and experience, we can today see our way of life changing more rapidly then any time over the past 70 years. There are a number of issues thrown up by the modern life-style of living in the fast lane, which we do not have the ability to find solutions to. Of these, the impact of new technology upon employment is not yet fully understood: yet this is coupled to the global market with its swift movement of both money and decisions. It is imperative that we create a democracy that is both strong and able to respond to the strains of the system. On top of the problems created by new technology, we have to find answers as to how we cope with climate change. After the summer we have just experienced, most people should be convinced that climate change is actually with us. Governments have paid insufficient notice to scientists, whilst listening instead to the lobbyists from big business.

Even as I write politicians are still beating the drum for competition and more competition, when what is needed is co-operation. In the present circumstances it is only by co-operation that we shall survive. We face an uncertain future, with crops destroyed by storms, forest fires and floods. These take place in the context of market forces creating unstable economies and declining resources. For the first time in 60 years we are witnessing a decline in our living standards.

Yet our needs to tackle both climate change and impacts of our private enterprise system, are also key constitutional issues. This is because our parliamentary system has a cosy relationship with big business and its comprehensive lobbying system, which acts as a barrier to the essential changes which are needed for the general well-being. Examples of corporate connivance abound, such as the attempts governments have taken over several years to get a simple system into our shops and supermarkets whereby customers can readily distinguish between healthy and unhealthy products. I defy anyone to tell at a glance whether what they have purchased is actually healthy or not.  This is just one example of the business community influence in blocking governmental objectives, on top of which large numbers of MPs have both direct and indirect links with business. For example, these are never worried about matters such as the amount of salt contained in a packet of crisps.

I was a schoolboy during the Second World War. Squadron after squadron of Luftwaffe Bombers would drop thousands of incendiary bombs, not only on our docks and factories, but our residential estates were targeted. We suffered power cuts, severed water mains, rationing and frequent food shortages. We survived only by co-operation, not competition. Out of this approach an improved life was built after the Second World War. But what was achieved is now being destroyed. We will move into a permanent state of chaos, unless  we learn to throw off the political lethargy that currently prevails at almost every level of society. I honestly can't see the needed leadership grit and determination coming from our current political parties. They have been seduced and corrupted by Capital, which has robbed them of their freedom of thought and action.

It is my experience of over 60 years of political activity, and the history I have lived through, which has led me to conclude that it is only by a complete cleansing of our political and business institutions that we can avert the worst conditions which confront us all. The reform of our current political system alone cannot address the huge chasm in our society. All of the various regions of the United Kingdom suffer from the malaise which is eating away at what is left. There is still a good deal to be done in the UK by lots of the people of these islands. Increasingly people are astonished by our sports athletes and their achievements, whose behaviour is quite at odds with our Bankers and Politicians who generally lack a commitment to anything unless it involves loads of money.

THE CAMPAIGN FOR NORTHERN RENEWAL

The Hannah Mitchell Foundation aims to achieve a Northern Government. This important aim will not, however, be achieved just on the basis of a campaign for constitutional reform. For a public debate limited to the whys and wherefores of constitutional reform will fail to generate enough enthusiasm to maintain public interest. The campaign needs two strands. One to promote the technical arguments for constitutional reform. The other to put the economic, social and environmental cases.

Those of us who have lived through and endured the pain of the industrial decline of the North of England have been quietly seething to see the way our manufacturing base has been destroyed. We have stood witness to both men and women workers being thrown on the scrap heap. At the age of 40,  people being told that they were getting too old for re-employment. The North still suffers from its loss of its Textile Industry, Ship Building and Repairing, Fishing Industry, Heavy Engineering, Steel Manufacturing, and its Coal Mines. They have been replaced by what a famous veteran of Labour Politics, Denis Healey, once disparagingly described as a "Candy Floss Economy". For too long we in the North have tolerated being treat as second class citizens and our loyalty to Labour has been abused. It is time for the North to get angry and speak up for itself. Our Parliamentary Representatives have been timid and afraid to rebel to make demands on our behalf. We need to create a Charter for the North. Part One dealing with the case for devolved Government, promoting new ideas and suitable alternatives. Part Two could be in the form of a Manifesto spelling out what we believe could be achieved under a suitable Government of the North. It is Part Two which is most likely to enthuse and excite people with its vision and possibilities.It is when people are enthused by the full picture that they will realise the possibilities of the full venture. At that point people shall be part of the wider movement for social, economic and political change, pointing a clear way out of our dark and uncertain future. We can give people a sense of hope and rid ourselves of the political lethargy which currently exists. We must be clear in our message - there is a better way.

KEN CURRAN
         





  

Sunday, June 10, 2012

We All Need To Count




This is my submission to Labour's Crime, Justice, Citizenship and Equalities Commission.

In his speech to Progress three weeks ago, Ed Miliband said that Labour "will embark on the biggest drive to register new voters in a generation". This is a welcome commitment, but if such a campaign is limited to the period up to the next General Election, it will be unlikely to overcome the massive problems associated with electoral registration in the UK. We also need a policy commitment to say that Labour will tackle registration problems once elected, by introducing the necessary legislation.

The size and nature of the problem surrounding electoral registration has been revealed in a recent report by the Electoral Commission.  They show that at least 6 million people are currently missing from electoral registers, with only 56% of 19-24 year olds being covered, and with the same low percentage for those in private rented accommodation. The major shortfalls in electoral registration occur amongst the young, the rootless, ethnic minorities and the poor. This has a knock on effect in distorting the shape and size of parliamentary constituencies, so that the most deprived areas in the UK are seriously unrepresented in parliament. The move from household to individual electoral registration is likely to add significantly to the numbers missing from registers, thereby worsening the current pattern.

What can be done to tackle such problems? First of all, we need to consider who should have the vote, and why. As the vote should be considered to be a fundamental human right, it should go to all of those who have established residency in the UK. For all residents should have a say in what laws, regulations and taxation regimes they operate under. The only exceptions to such  an arrangement, should be (1) the exclusion from electoral registers of those who are incapable of exercising voting rights due to serious mental incapacity, and (2) those (owing to their age alone) who have not yet reached sufficient maturity. As it would be open to manipulation to employ tests as to when a person was mature enough to vote, an arbitrary age needs to be employed to decide when people will first qualify to vote. For reasons I give later, I suggest that the qualifying date for obtaining the vote should be a person's sixteenth birthday.

Under the above proposals, the current franchise would then be extended to (a) sixteen and seventeen year olds, (b) residents in this country from overseas (at this moment this right is restricted to those who come from Commonwealth Nations and from the Republic of Ireland) and (c) all prisoners (whose new franchise rights could be related to their previous place of residence).

To ensure everyone who had enfranchisement rights would receive them, numbers of improvements would need to be made to the electoral registration system.  First of all, the Government would need to conducted regular advertising campaigns, telling people of their electoral registration rights and duties. Secondly, Returning Officers would have access to records which showed the places of residence of the people living in their areas; including details of residential movements in and out of such areas.  Thirdly, a person would only be entitled to register in the place of their sole or main place of residence; with those changing such residence being contacted to ensure they make use of the existing rolling electoral registration provisions which allow them to transfer their voting rights.. Fourthly, the annual canvas by Returning Officers would require canvassers to engage in door to door canvassing, especially of residences where no-one had registered or where there are significant changes since the previous canvas. Finally, canvassers would undertake searches, to ensure that homeless people were registered. 

The extra costs incurred by Returning Officers in fulfilling their duties, would come from Central Government Funds. It would be no excuse to say that we can't afford democracy.

A sound reason for giving people votes at sixteen, is that a person's initial registration could take place at school when students were fifteen year-old and were due to attain the vote. Local Returning Officers will need to send canvassers to schools in their area to facilitate the process - passing completed registration forms on to neighbouring Returning Officers where this is necessary.

We need wide-ranging changes to the electoral registration system, to repair the damages to the current system caused by increased social mobility, de-politicalisation, breaks in the social bond and operations of anti-social measures, such as that of the breach caused in the past by Thatcher's Poll Tax.

Harry Barnes

Monday, April 2, 2012

"A Nation Deceived" by Ken Curran

The arteries of our parliamentary system have become sclerotic. They are unable to respond to the real heartbeat of a people who feel they have been well and truly misled. There is a growing disquiet about the whole of Britain's future, its role in the world, or what it really means to be British.

I perceive a growing decline in the unity of people in Britain today. This is reflected in the growing interest in the self determination of Scotland and Wales. Writing in a letter in the Guardian recently, Professor Paul Salverson of Huddersfield University argued for a reshaping of the United Kingdom based on regional governments (see his book on the issue here). He believes in an amalgamation of the Yorkshire Region, the North West, the North East and Cumbria. In effect a new region stretching form Berwick-upon-Tweed down to the Trent in the East Midlands; and in the west from Carlisle to the south of Merseyside.

This is a bold idea. It has become increasingly apparent in recent times that the Westminster governmental system does not command the respect of the electorate. In a democracy, reciprocal respect between the government and the governed is the prerequisite needed to build the confidence people require, if they are to feel that they are part of the national family.

Our governmental system is an an anachronism, stuck in the past and out of touch with almost everything around it. None of the political parties have a vision for the future. They offer no future for our young people and almost every part of our public services are in crisis! The services for the elderly in Britain are a national disgrace. The House of Commons is full of self seeking individuals; many lack an honest bone in their bodies. This is not just my opinion. On 5th March, Peter Kellner a national pollster revealed that nearly two-thirds of voters say that politicians lie "all the time" and less than a quarter think that parliament does a good job debating issues of concern to them. Kellner concluded that the figures show that Britain's democratic system is in danger.

It would be unwise to ignore the straws in the wind, yet this is what parliament continues to do. Before these people aspire to lead the nation, they should examine their real motives for wishing to represent them. I have been in the Labour Party for over sixty years and increasingly feel I have been deceived by not one, but by many who have sat in our parliament.

I am not alone in my concern. I feel that I am expressing the concerns of many. I, therefore, feel that if parliament can not reform itself, we must press for reforms which will ensure that we have structures which properly reflect the real needs and concerns of the people. I broadly support the call for a Northern Parliament. For over sixty years the North-South divide has grown and today is a chasm that is wider than ever. If the Westminster Government is not addressing the proper concerns of the North, then perhaps it is time for us to take matters into our own hands, away from a structure dominated by self-seeking individuals who have no real feeling of kinship or empathy with the people they purport to represent.

KEN CURRAN

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

"The Sequal - A Federal Solution" by Ken Curran

This is a follow-up to my earlier articles "Leap in the Dark" and "Seeking a Way Forward" in which I stated that radical and dynamic solutions are required to address the problem of the North-South divide. My friend Ken Turton (who is a former railwayman) responded to tell me that contrary to my proposal to build a new east-west tunnel to stimulate freight traffic beneath the Pennines, a less costly alternative was already available. He pointed out that the existing Woodhead Tunnel is capable of carrying high speed freight trains and there was already a large freight line depot available to the west of the Pennines which could be utilized to provided effective deliveries to a new Humber Port Terminal in around 90 minutes. I believe that Ken's Woodhead option should be considered. Nevertheless, bold decisions of one variety or the other will need to be made if we are to make the needed leap in the dark. For today we live in a world in which if you stand still for a moment, we find we have actually gone backwards.

What is needed is a high priority is the upgrading or renewal of east-west rail links. For the export of British made products, our northern ports are under-utilised since the decisions of Thatcher that Britain's future lay in Finance, based in London. British ports have been rundown and neglected. British manufacturing has been left to languish as a Cinderella.

We have to confront Westminster with serious demands. There is no doubt in my mind that Governments in Westminster have failed to produce plans that can and will allow our people to face with confidence the very serious issues facing mankind. Our Governments have over time become so corrupted by their association with the vested interests of business and high finance that they are unable to distinguish national, private and public interests apart. As a member of the Labour Party I hate admitting that in recent times I have been driven by learning of the private behaviour of many of our MPs, that self-interest is a major drive of their behaviour. Nye Bevan believed that Westminster had very corrupting influence upon those who entered our parliament. The present method of our Government and its environment actually inhibits local councils, often surrounding and smothering them with bureacracy. This creates a situation in which the local electorate judge councils as being just similar to Westminister. I believe that there is a genuine case for changing the nature and method of governing the United Kingdom.

The present system of Government is failing on a number of fronts. It fails the nation on the economy, having created the North-South divide which is now a perminent feature of the economic landscape which no political party has really tried to address. There is a failure in housing. Transport is in a mess. Youth employment is a serious social problem, with overall unemployment forecast to reach 3.5 million. Care for the elderly is in a state of collapse. There is an abject failure to tackle climate change.

We have seen how the Welsh and Scottish Parliament have been able to engage their people by taking key decisions closer to those who are the recipients of their programmes. Neither the Scots nor the Welsh people can be judged as overtly nationalistic, unlike the English Defence League which is clearly linked to racism. A move to introduce Regional Government is, I believe, long overdue in order to enable people to to be energised over the key policies of transport, housing, elderly care, economic development, planning, health and the environment. I would advocate that Westminister should be a Federal Government where each of the Federal Regions are represented by members of the Regional Government of their areas. I have yet to hear any MP advance any convincing argument why millions of potential electors fail to vote at elections. There may be a number of reasons. Personally I believe many do not vote because they believe it makes little difference because the system is corrupt and no longer fit for purpose.

Ken Curran, Chair of Sheffield Co-operative Party and Sheffield District Labour Party.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Parliamentary Pitmen Politicians


James Haslam (above) was the first of eleven pitmen to become an MP in North Derbyshire, when he was elected to represent Chesterfield in 1906. It started a tradition which lasts to this day under Dennis Skinner, the MP for Bolsover. How did these pitmen politicians emerge and did they achieve what they set out to do? This is the topic which I will be covering at the following meeting.

NOTTS & DERBYSHIRE LABOUR HISTORY SOCIETY

Topic...........Parliamentary Pitmen Politicians of North Derbyshire

Speaker.......Harry Barnes (former MP for North East Derbyshire)


Date............Saturday 21st January 2012

Time...........2 pm (doors open at 1.30)


Venue.........Chesterfield Labour Club, Saltergate, Chesterfield


(See here for a related item.)

Thursday, December 29, 2011

"A People Deceived - Without Malice !" by Ken Curran

The arteries of our parliamentary system have become so sclerotic. It cannot respond to hear the heartbeat of the people of these British Isles. So a growing decline in the unity of our people is being reflected in a rising interest in the self-determination of Scotland and Wales. As recently as last week Professor Salverson of Huddersfield University writing in the Guardian, argued for a step towards the reshaping of a new United Kingdom which would be based on Regional Government. He suggested an amalgamation of the Yorkshire Region, the North East and Cumbria. This is not as fanciful as some people may suggest. I don't believe that we should dismiss such proposals out of hand. I sense a growing feeling of uncertainty over the possible ending of the Union. The speculation stems not so much from an upsurge of nationalism in Wales and Scotland, but from a feeling that the Westminster Government increasingly fails to reflect the views of the people.

Rotten Apples In The Barrel

Much of our current political, social and economic debris (with its greed , mistrust and disillusionment) has its roots in Thatcherism. I am aware that she has not been around physically for a good number of years. However, in her role as the Ghost of Christmas Past she still walks the corridors of Westminster. The "Political Class" has not renounced her, nor has it cleansed itself of self-seeking individuals who almost daily bring our democracy into dispute. These people inhabit each of our major Political Parties. Few of our current MPs have really served their time to prove they are worthy, capable or trustworthy for their positions in Parliament. The state of our society and the decline of our country is all too apparent. Streets awash with litter from cans and plastic bottles. Unkempt parks and playgrounds. Boarded up shops. Rising unemployment. Young people thrown out on the scrap heap of a derelict, non-directional and valueless society. As with the collapse of Ancient Rome, Britain is no longer fit for purpose. The huge investment and suffering by those generations who fought the 1939-45 war to build the Welfare State, National Service and our Educational Provisions, has been squandered and destroyed by what is being turned into a greedy and philosophically aimless nation.

From KEN CURRAN

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Jon Williams - Petition To Help To Save The NHS



Aneurin Bevan (above) said of the NHS: "It will survive as long as there are folk left with the faith to fight for it".


Shadow Health Secretary, Andy Burnham's email dated 24th Nov is running with two petitions - Labour’s "Drop the Bill" and local GP Dr Kailash Chand's "Calls on the Government to drop its Health and Social Care Bill."

Andy Burham says that "In the last few days we have had a major breakthrough - a local GP, Dr Kailash Chand has set up a Government e-petition calling on the Government to drop the Bill.
This is a great opportunity for us to pile the pressure on the Government, and so I want to ask a favour from you. I am asking all people who have signed the Drop the Bill petition to sign the Government e-petition as well. In addition, I am asking you to try to get four of your friends, family and colleagues to sign both petitions as well. We got 20,000 signatures in just a few days on Labour's petition - let's get 100,000 people to sign the Government e-petition."

By my calculations - as of today Dr Kailash Chand e-petition stands at nearly thirteen thousand...so over approx one thousand signatures per day it should take Dec, Jan and Feb to reach the total and maybe force a debate in the House of Commons.

An article by Allyson Pollock
again highlights what a disaster privatising the NHS will be. He states - "The private sector providers too will have extraordinary new rights. The right to fair and equal treatment will no longer be for patients but for the benefit of investors, who will use competition policy and trade law to demand a right of entry and a right to ensure that their services can continue to operate profitably."

And to reinforce the message privatising the NHS is ongoing process happening now - please see the NHS Cuts Route Finder here .

And finally looking for inspiration from James Keir Hardie between 1895 and 1900 he worked to persuade the unions to back the ILP. The future can be found in history books...

"The unity of the working class is the one thing that matters. That can never be a thing of rapid growth. Abstract theories with them count for very little… Socialism supplies the vision and a united working class satisfies the senses as a practical method of attaining its realisation. To attain that unity is, and must be, the first object of all who desire Socialism." (p.4, Francis Johnson, ILP, 1922).

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Michael Foot and the 1983 Manifesto - by Jon Williams


It's interesting to look back to when Labour was at its most unpopular. I think unjustly so - given the harsh treatment by the press at the time - especially of Michael Foot. From his last interview there is one line that highlights his foresight many years ago - amazingly true. He said " Yes, well, they got it all slightly wrong, I thought, when they attacked that manifesto back then. 'The longest suicide note in history', that was what Gerald Kaufman called it. Gerald was actually elected on the same manifesto, so I do still hold that against him, you know. We proposed taking over the banks, not being at the mercy of capitalist forces and all the rest of it. Although it was Jill who suffered the worse from all of that media attention."

The Labour Party Manifesto of 1983 is quite relevant in today's economic troubles. Below is an opening summary of four years of Tory Government from 1979. It all seems very similar to the current Tory (Lib) Government's policies!!

"When the Tories took office in May 1979, unemployment was falling and the economy growing. Living standards had gone up by a sixth in two years, and North Sea oil held out the prospect of economic growth, high levels of employment and better social services.

All this was thrown away by the Tories. Nearly three and a quarter million men and women are now out of work, even on the official count. Plant after plant forced to close. Manufacturing production down by a fifth. Investment cut by a third. Our domestic markets captured by imports of manufactured goods.

After four years of Mrs. Thatcher, Britain is a poorer country. We have fared far worse than any other major industrial country. The unprecedented advantage of North Sea oil and gas - worth, in tax revenues alone, 8p in the pound on income tax - has been squandered, with nothing whatsoever to show for it.

What have all these sacrifices achieved? Our economy today is weaker, not stronger, than in 1979. There is no prospect of real economic growth. Indeed, the Tories no longer dare to predict when unemployment will begin to fall. True enough, inflation, after being forced to record levels by the Tories, has been brought down. But look at the cost in jobs, in poorer housing, in living standards, and in lost opportunities for our youth. And now inflation is set to increase again, with interest rates and mortgage rates likely to rise too.

The legacy of four Tory years goes beyond unemployment and industrial decline; beyond the damage done to our social services; beyond even the dangerous commitment to new nuclear weapons. It is expressed in the deep sense of bitterness, distrust and despair now felt among so many sections of the community. Our task will be to heal these wounds and rekindle among the British people a new sense of unity and common purpose."

Unbelievable how the above words still apply today, in particular after the recent riots - "heal these wounds and rekindle among the British people a new sense of unity and common purpose."

At first glance there are several good ideas in this manifesto - that could be used even today. I believe all were agreed at Annual Conference, when it was still permitted.



On Michael Foot also see here and here.



Thursday, August 4, 2011

Identifying With Jack

This is a photo of the Labour Cabinet of 1945. The fourth person from the right in the back row is Jack Lawson (1881-1965). He differed from me in many ways, such as working in the pit where he went as a 12 year old , becoming a Government Minister and then a Peer. Yet there are many points on which I can identify with him. Although things often happened to us in a very different order and in a different context. For me, they were also at a much more shallower depth. But I can claim to share aspects of the points below - although unlike Jack I left the Methodist Chapel.

1. He was born in the north of England in a coastal mining community. 2. He grew up in a Durham County mining colliery. 3. He became a Methodist. 4. He joined the ILP. 5. He joined the Labour Party. 6. He joined the Co-op. 7. He was a bibliophile. 8. He made use of a bookseller in Newcastle in his early days. 9. His wife had links with Sunderland. 10. He had an involvement with adult education. 11. He studied at Ruskin College. 12 He served for two years in the forces. 13. He became a Labour MP. 14. He spent time at Easington Colliery.

I have finally got around to reading his 1932/1944 autobiography "A Man's Life" which I review here. However be warned, my review is a long one and I say nearly as much about myself as I do about Jack. But these are the entitlements of an old blatherer.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Fighting Cuts To Legal Aid


On Sunday we held an important meeting addressed by Juliette Frangos of the Chesterfield Law Centre under the title "Fighting Cuts To Legal Aid".

On 29 June the Commons passed the Second Reading of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill by 295 votes to 212. Yesterday the Bill moved into its Committee Stage where it receives more detailed scrutiny, although the Coalition Government have a built in majority on that Committee and they are committed to the general trust of its proposals.

If passed into law as the measure stands, it will have a devastating impact on the provisions of legal aid for masses of vulnerable people. It will remove legal aid for 100% of cases concerning welfare benefits, 100% of cases concerning employment law and 75% of cases involving new debts - with the other 25% of funding only being available via a Government telephone line for those whose homes are at immediate risk of being taken from them. On average 46% of Law Centre funding, to provide services for those who can not afford otherwise to obtain help from solicitors, comes from Legal Aid and without it many will face closure. Those who remain will be hamstrung in their work. Yet Law Centres, that were established because the original Legal Aid scheme had failed to address the needs of the poor and disadvantaged, have been providing crucial services to those most in need of legal assistance ever since 1970. Now almost 70% of Legal Aid funding is earmarked to be cut with some cuts beginning as early as this October.


Because the proposed legislation covers a wide area, the issue of the massive cuts in legal aid is in danger of failing to get a full and fair hearing in the Commons. Nor is it a matter that is receiving the attention from the media which it should be given. Campaigning to defend access to Legal Aid is, therefore, crucial.

As a consequence of our meeting on the topic, I was asked to seek out ways and means by which our group could involve itself in moves to defend current legal aid provisions. As a starter, I provide the links below to two campaigns which I have signed up to. I hope that others will also do this. The links also provide further details of of the devastating impact of the proposed legislation. There is a need for all of us to do whatever we can to block the measure.

See Sound Off For Justice and Justice For All

The campaigning organisation 38 Degrees (which as you will see has a valuable track record) runs an opening entitled "What should we campaign on next?". I will now submit this item to them and press for their support. It would help considerably if others also raised the issue with them via the above link.

Monday, May 16, 2011

Refounding The Consultation


We can make Christmas come early this year for Labour. What are your own ideas on the following? They would be most welcome in our comment box.

Labour's consultative document "Refounding Labour" came in for a wide range of criticism at last night's Dronfield Labour Party Discussion Meeting. It was described as "a top down exercise, lacking any political perspective", "being like a Government Consultative exercise which provides too little time for independent discussion to take place", "a procedure where those in the know get their ideas endorsed in line with what was planned for all along", "a document that assumes that Labour only faces structural problems, yet it faces fundamental problems which go much wider", "containing nothing on policy issues", "another example of the tail wagging the dog" and even "a crap consultative exercise."

Nevertheless in an attempt to improve matters, a variety of ideas were put forward, including -

1. That because Labour's system of Policy Forums is not understood by the bulk of Labour Party members and tends to be made up of self-appointed people linked in with the leadership, they should be abolished.

2. In place of the National Policy Forum procedure, the Annual Conference of the Labour Party needs to be revitalised in order to involve members in policy-making.

3. The Labour Party should establish a set of Policy Commissions drawn from people with relevant expertise, to draw up reports on key issues such as how to control the operations of the banks and financial institutions. Such reports should then be discussed throughout the Labour Party and its affiliated organisations, with Annual Conferences of the Labour Party deciding what to accept, reject and amend.

4. The Labour Party needs to involve itself with people seeking to defend their quality of life, including their public services, by its members being out in the market places with petitions on issues such the defence of the NHS. The membership also needs to be encouraged to establish links with groups such as Tenants Associations and to be proactive locally in monitoring key issues such as the impact of inflation upon the vulnerable and then publishing their findings.

5. Clause 4 of the Labour Party Constitution should be re-examined, especially in relation to the sub-clause which most strongly reflects the areas in which New Labour's economic failures were concentrated with its call for a "Dynamic Economy" based on "the enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition". This sub-clause should be replaced by one that seeks a "Sustainable Economy" which pursues high quality public services operated democratically for the public good.

6. Labour should draw up a "Charter for Young People" which can attract the involvement of young people and thus help safeguard Labour's future. (See the case in "Dronfield Blather" here).

7. There should be a strong commitment to non-dogmatic forms of political education throughout the Labour Party and the wider Labour Movement. (See the case in "Dronfield Blather" here).

8. There needs to be a change in the make-up of the Parliamentary Labour Party, for parliament at the moment contains too may members who belong to a "political class" where MPs often have more in common with each other across the political divide than they do with their own voters.


At our next discussion meeting, we will go on to refine and develop the above points for submission to the "Refounding Labour" consultative procedure. It will be an attempt to lift matters beyond the mundane.

Saturday, November 27, 2010

How Is Labour To Become The "People's Party" Again ?


Ed Miliband (above) has called on Labour activists to take the term 'big society' back from the Conservatives and for Labour to become the "people's party" again.

Launching a major policy review, he said the party must move beyond New Labour to reconnect with the public's aspirations after "losing its way". See here for the details. Then see here for his earlier letter to the Dronfield Labour Party Discussion Group.

This policy review will be at the centre of our next Discussion Meeting which is to be addressed by Richard Caborn (below). For details of that meeting see our right hand column.