A View from the Public Gallery

Miliband, Blair and The Road to Perdition

2011-09-30T00:53:00.001+01:00

It was torture for me, to read all the tweets from Labour Party Conference this year. In Manchester, at #Lab10, I had a wonderful time and I was thoroughly unhappy at not being there for #Lab 11 in Liverpool.

I did however watch what I could, and was delighted every time I saw someone I knew pop up on screen, in the audience, or at the podium, addressing the delegates and visitors. I gave little squeals of excitement when I saw @msgracefh wearing her "I <3 MCR" t-shirt, alongside other Manchester tweeps I recognised; when I saw @kevpeel listening intently to the speaker and of course I was very pleased to see Dan Jarvis, MP for Barnsley Central take to the podium for the first time at conference since being elected.

I watched Ed Miliband give his speech (except for the part when the television feed failed!) and overall I thought he did a good job. As with any leader's conference speech, there will be those who like it and those who don't. I expect Tories and Lib Dems to have a go and say it was rubbish, because they would have done that even if Ed had channeled Churchill.

I do 'get' why there were cheers when Ed said "I'm not Tony Blair." Those of you who have been with me on my political journey before, will know I have extreme difficulty with some of the decisions Blair made whilst in office. BUT you will also know that I consider his achievements in enacting some of the most socialist policy this country has seen since the creation of our wonderful NHS, as an incredible legacy.

The sad fact is though, despite winning three General Elections, Blair's Legacy is tainted. This is an incredible pity, for it makes many in the party ashamed, to some degree, of the leader who brought us the most electoral success we have ever seen.

We have a leader now, who really seems to understand, in exactly the way Blair did, that the Labour Party needs to change, in order to engage (and recruit) members and voters. This is no quick fix and cannot be done in twelve short months. Why the rush comrades? This coalition is going nowhere, the Tories are standing on Lib Dem shoulders of compliance, enabling them to ride roughshod over working people, the young, poor and disabled; while Clegg and the Parliamentary Lib Dem's know that if they break the coalition, they break their party and order their own P45s.

We have time. Time to demonstrate that the only party that truly represents workers; the only party that invests in the futures of our young people; and the only party that truly believes in a society that is fair for all, is The Labour Party.

We are stronger together than divided. We do not need factionalism and mixed agendas. That way is the road to perdition; the electoral wilderness. Ed Miliband is trying to bring our party back together, to give a voice back to the members, to re-lay the foundations upon which the Labour movement was built and give people a reason to join the party again. He is leading, not managing and that will take, those members who were used to the management-style of the New Labour period, time to adjust.

Delivering power back to the people; people who aspire, who want to contribute to a fair society, where everyone has the same opportunities and life chances is a huge task. It will take years to even scratch the surface.

By the time we have our next Labour government, some of the damage done to our society, by Cameron and his cronies, will be irreversible.

When they are finished, Dave, Gideon and their mate Clegg, will have made Thatcher look like Mother Theresa.

To fight them effectively the Labour Party must be a united force. We will still argue policy, there will still be those further to the left and those who occupy the centre-left and that is no bad thing. What we must do, is fight together, be focussed on our goal and make sure we do not gift a Tory win in 2015 through infighting and navel-gazing.

That is our biggest challenge and one we cannot afford to lose.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Back in the Saddle Again

2011-09-17T12:32:00.001+01:00

I have written about my thanks for our wonderful NHS before, specifically, how the last Labour government's Cancer Guarantee saved my life and the excellent treatment I received at Barnsley Hospital. Now though, as I face more treatment things are different. Our NHS is not cherished and nurtured by this government, in the way Labour looked after its baby, it is seen as a huge achievement of socialism, something that flies in the face of Conservative ideology.

I feared for the NHS when the Tories formed a government, with the help of the Lib Dems; standing on the shoulders of compliance.

I feared when Andrew Lansley announced the scrapping of all clinical targets. Diseases like cancer demand targets, time is one of the greatest advantages to treating and beating it.

I feared the changes to funding that meant hospitals would be paid on outcomes, meaning hospitals could not be proactive - how can prevention be measured or demonstrated as an outcome?

I feared when I saw the funding cuts to NHS Trusts in the north, whilst in richer areas there were increases. Cutting health funding to areas where the health profile shows prevention services are an essential part of reducing clinical demand.

I feared for the clinical staff who would be under even more pressure as a result.

I feared when I saw that NHS waiting lists have soared in the first year of Tory management.

Yes, yes, we all know about the global economic crisis, the deficit and some cuts being necessary. What I do not understand is why cuts are being targeted in ways that reduce the number of people from poorer backgrounds entering further and higher education, and increase the number of people who are unable to get help with prevention of diseases and/or speedy treatment for those life-limiting conditions that mean they cannot work.

A wise person* once said to me, you cannot cut your way out of recession but you can work your way out. A top-quality, efficient health service is one of the main building blocks of a ready workforce.

It is also a neon sign pointing to a more equal society.

if the Tories damage our NHS beyond repair, it is only through the compliance of the Lib Dems. I once thought the Liberal Democrats had moved to the left of Labour on some policies, now I see, it was always a ploy, a honey trap to lure voters in. It worked for many, most of whom will never make the same mistake again.

We must fight to save our NHS from damaging reform, that is not driven by care for society but by money. People should drive the economy NOT the other way round, as this government is intent on doing.

*@CllrTim

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

GAVI, Scaling the Summit

2011-06-13T12:12:00.002+01:00

Today is the day when world leaders will really demonstrate their commitment to international aid. At the GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisations) summit, hosted by David Cameron and Bill Gates, leaders from around the world will pledge funds to ensure GAVI's work can continue.

The total cost of the work up to 2015 is £4.2bn and ahead of today's historic summit, there was a gap in this funding, of £2.3bn. This gap MUST be plugged, if we are to give children in poorer countries the start in life they deserve - the same start in life that we take for granted for our children in the UK.

I have heard a few people, including MPs and Ministers such as Liam Fox, criticise David Cameron for making a commitment to the UK's continuation of funding to GAVI.

They say: We do not have the money.

I say: What would you prioritise above stopping children from dying?

They say: Charity begins at home.

I say: This is not about charity it is about humanity.

So far today, Bill Gates, who we met yesterday, has personally pledged $1bn and David Cameron has promised $1.3bn from the UK.

More news later...

Updated:14:35

We were very lucky to be sat in the front row of the press conference to hear Secretary of State Andrew Mitchell and Bill Gates, announce the result of the GAVI Conference.

Amazingly, the target of $3.7bn was exceeded, with a total of $4.3bn pledged by countries around the world. This includes a pledge of $1.3bn from the UK and $1bn from the Gates Foundation. In fact, governments around the world more than doubled their previous commitments and new donating countries, included Japan and Brazil.

The developing countries also committed to maintain or increase their co-financing of their vaccine programmes. Getting the vaccines out to children in remote areas is now much more of a possibility, thanks to the work done here today.

It isn't often I praise David Cameron, but this is one issue that requires party politics to be checked at the door. Today, he promised that "Britain will play its full part and our support to GAVI will help vaccinate over 80 million children...That's one child vaccinated every two seconds for five years." For this, I must say he has done a great job.

No Child Born to Die: My Mozamblogue Pt 3

2011-06-10T16:28:00.002+01:00

On Monday 13^th June 2011, David Cameron is hosting a summit of world leaders. This is a ground-breaking event, not your average conference on economics or trade. This summit actually has the potential to make an enormous difference, where leaders can actually save the lives of four-million children.

GAVI (The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisations) is the organisation that provides the practical programmes that take immunisations to those children who do not have easy access to them. One-in-five children in the world have no immunisations at all. A shocking statistic; unsurprisingly, these children are mostly those who are born in some of the world's poorest countries. GAVI's work is essential in reaching children in these countries, where healthcare is not something that can be taken for granted.

Diptheria, whooping cough and Tetanus are just three of the killer-diseases that children in the UK are routinely immunised against. We are fortunate to have easy access to a comprehensive programme of immunisations via our local clinic or GP's surgery. Even if our children do become ill, we do not need to worry about whether we can afford to have them treated. We can just turn up at the surgery and the GP will examine our offspring, reassure us and prescribe the drugs necessary to fight whatever infection they have picked up.

In poorer countries, healthcare is not so easily accessible, so if a child in a far-flung corner of a developing country picks up an infection, they are far more likely to die. And these children do die, from preventable diseases, every single day; over two-million of them, every single year.

In a country such as Mozambique, where one-in-ten children do not reach their fifth birthday, the work done by GAVI is essential. It is not only about getting the vaccines. Drug companies can produce them, albeit for a profit, and it was a welcome move when two of the biggest drug companies, Merck and Glaxosmithkline lowered the cost of the vaccines they produce, making them more affordable for countries in the developing world. This helps GAVI to direct funds to the other areas of the programme, costs that we may not realise are fundamental to the immunisation programme.

A campaign for food for malnourished children is easy to understand, a campaign for clothing and essential supplies in a disaster-struck area is obvious. For GAVI, the vaccines are just one element of their work. When I visited Mozambique earlier this month, I saw first hand, the vaccines being delivered and administered to babies who had been brought to outreach clinics by their mothers. Some had travelled over 40 kilometres and waited for over four hours to have their baby examined, weighed and immunised. These women knew the value of the vaccinations their babies were receiving, they had received the necessary information and advice, they were also, despite their long journeys and waiting, fortunate enough to have relatively accessible healthcare.

It was incredibly positive, I and the other Mums who had travelled with Save the Children, saw the system working well. Motorbikes and Outreach Workers, transporting the life-saving vaccines to remote areas, on bumpy roads and sandy tracks, taking healthcare to the villages with no transport or electricity. It is only through the dedication of these people, that the children we met can avoid becoming part of the statistic for infant mortality. A threat that is so real and so preventable.

Have Vaccines Will Travel. My Mozamblogue Part 2

2011-06-03T23:19:00.002+01:00

As much as I have been here with the specific purpose of highlighting the incredible work that is done to make sure children in Mozambique receive their life-saving immunisations, I thought I sort of knew what to expect. How wrong I was. This is a compete journey of discovery in more ways than I imagined possible.

I knew there were remote areas in Mozambique, that was the point; follow the journey of a vaccine to a remote area, to the child that receives it. What I didn't consider, was just how remote an area is, when there is no regular or reliable public transport to connect it to the towns and cities. This means that a village, just a couple of hours away by car, is almost impossibly far, when there is no motorised transport and one is carrying a sick child. Yet this is what parents (usually mothers, as the men are often away working, if they can find a job) are faced with in the more distant communities.

At the district clinic, on the outskirts of Guija, I met women who had travelled for hours and hours, to make certain their babies received essential immunisations. They were absolutely reliant on the healthcare workers who work at the clinic and provide, not only essential medical care, but also education and information about hygiene, child nutrition and disease prevention.

This district healthcare clinic is the central repository for vaccines in the region. The vials are stored in fridges and must be strictly temperature controlled and kept between 2C and 8C. If they get too warm or too cold, they will be unusable. To get the vaccines out into the remote villages, they are transported in insulated boxes, by motorbike.

I met a Ministry of Health Outreach Worker, Amelia, who has the responsibility of transporting and administering the vaccines in these distant areas. We followed in our truck, as Amelia rode pillion on a motorbike, ridden by another healthcare worker. As they travelled, Amelia had to hold two boxes, one over each arm. The village we were visiting was only around half an hour away from the district centre, but some journeys can take four hours, on roads that are pitted with potholes and sandy tracks that are rugged and dangerous.

As we approached April 7th Village, (named after the date of Mozambique's National Women's Day) we saw a group of women, with babies, sat under a tree. This was the clinic. A beautiful, big tree, with wide-spread branches providing shade from the sun. Some of the women had travelled to the clinic from other, further afield villages, and had waited for almost four hours.

The first health worker began by addressing the group with a lesson on breast-feeding. The women sat, listened carefully and even answered in chorus, when questions were asked. They value every bit of education they can get, both for themselves and for their children. At the end of this session, the women clapped in appreciation and began lining up to have their babies weighed.

Such bonny babies, healthy and well-fed; a benefit of being close to a small town. I watched, played peek-a-boo and shared with mothers pictures of myown children, all at home on half term, probably driving their Dad to distraction. I stood among the women, who all love their children, just as much as I love mine and understood why some of them would travel and wait for hours and hours, to give their children the best chance of survival.

This is Dulsa Costa. She received the vaccine we have followed on this amazing journey. "Mr Vaccine". Make sure there are more children like her, who have a much better chance of surviving past their fifth birthday. Help us to make the voices of children like Dulsa, heard by world leaders. You can help right now with no more effort than a click of your mouse key and a few taps on your keyboard. No money, no effort. Sign the petition, please.

Doesn't every child deserve a healthy start in life? We can help to make sure they get it. Sign the petition, now. Don't think "I'll do it later," do it NOW. Please.

Into Africa: Barnsley to Mozambique - My Mozamblog Part 1

2011-05-31T17:20:00.000+01:00

I'm not sure I will adequately explain how I feel about travelling to Mozambique. I have been to several southern African countries before, but never Mozambique.

I must say firstly: I absolutely LOVE Africa. It is a wonderful place of vast open spaces, dramatic scenery and huge skies. There is no place on Earth that compares with the feeling of being here. I am reminded so clearly of how I felt when I was here last, with my son Harry, when he was just nine. He too was touched by the spirit of Africa and, like me, is determined to return one day. I once described Africa as somewhere that makes you feel as though you have left a part of yourself there and it calls you, constantly to return. Well, here I am, but this trip will be like no other.

Mozambique is a long way from Barnsley, but the welcome is just as warm. Today, we arrived in Maputo just as the school day was ending and the scene was a mirror-image of the same time of day, in the streets around schools in the UK. Kids. Laughing, teasing one another, shouting last-minute messages to their classmates before heading home; every single one of them so full of life.

These children are the lucky ones. Mozambique has one of the highest rates of under-five infant mortality in the world. A recent study gave this figure as 14 in every 100 live births. Most of these deaths are from easily-preventable diseases; diseases that our children in the UK, are routinely protected from, by immunisations that we are lucky to be able to take for granted.

I hope the trip I am on, thanks to the Save the Children #PassItOn project, with my fellow travellers, Chris Mosler and Lindsay Atkin, will help to push the vital message to world leaders: immunisation is the key to saving millions of children's lives. It is our responsibility to make sure children of all nations have access to these vital drugs.

Help us to convince David Cameron, and the world leaders he will host at the Vaccination Summit on June 13th, that the life of a child in nations like Mozambique, is worth just as much as the life of a child in the UK.

#Passiton: Mums in Mozambique

2011-05-25T23:36:00.002+01:00

On Monday, I, along with two other Mums, will be flying to Mozambique with Save the Children. The reason we are doing this, is to highlight the incredible job that vaccines do, in preventing the death of so many children from easily preventable diseases. We will be tracking the journey of a vaccine, produced in the Republic of Ireland, on its long journey to the child in Mozambique who will receive it.

I have three children, all of them received vaccinations to protect them from dangerous diseases such as whooping cough and tetanus. Diseases that are easily preventable. Children in developing nations do not have the easy access to these immunisations, that we take for granted.

If one of my children becomes ill, my GP is two minutes away or hospital A & E department, just ten minutes by car. If a child in a developing country becomes ill, medical attention can be hours or even days away. This is why we must raise awareness about the importance of routine vaccinations for these children.

Over two million children die every year from easily preventable diseases. THAT is why this campaign is important. No Child should be Born to Die.

The lives of poorer children in developing countries are just as valuable as the lives of our children. A mother losing a cherished child in a country such as Mozambique, mourns that loss, just as deeply as you or I would.

On June 13th, David Cameron is hosting a vaccine summit. This summit will last for 4 hours and has the potential to save 4 MILLION lives. Please help us to get this message to the world leaders. Bridging the gap in funding for immunisations is essential to save the lives of millions of children.

To find out more about the campaign and our trip, please see: http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/en/50_pass-it-on.htm Then...

      @tchee
      @christinemosler
      @liliesarelike
      @MrVaccine

Sign the petition online at: http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/en/4-million.htm or by SMS, by texting 'jab' to 84118.

And most importantly, please spread the word!

Local Elections 2011: TChee for Royston!

2011-04-26T12:03:00.000+01:00

As we approach the final few days of the local elections 2011, postal voters should have already received their ballot papers and everyone should, by now, have received their polling card. I am incredibly proud to be the Labour Candidate for Royston and Carlton and here is why I am urging local residents to vote Labour:

This is the only way to send a clear message to the Tory & Lib-Dem government. We will not stand by and watch them destroy our public services, squeeze hard-working families, hurt those in need, such as the elderly and dash the hopes and aspirations of our young people by making it harder for them to access further and higher education.

With the cost of gas and electricity rising, what did Osborne do? He cut the Winter Fuel Allowance for Pensioners.
With families being squeezed and having to cut back, what did Osborne do? He removed their child's EMA, making education a choice based on affordability.
When more children from poor backgrounds were trying to escape the poverty trap through education, what did Osborne do? He cut the teaching budget to universities by 80%, meaning that they cannot avoid increasing fees, they were then allowed to do so, when the upper limit was increased by 300% to £9000. The prospect of beginning their working life with mortgage-level debt, is enough to put young people from these backgrounds off going into higher education.
When families were stretched, due to pay-freezes and increased demand on their money, what did Osborne do? He raised VAT.
When families were stretched even further as a result of the increases in VAT, the increased fuel duty and soaring prices, what did Osborne do? He cut their Tax Credits.

There is an alternative. Vote Labour. I will be a strong voice for Royston and Carlton. I will stand up for our community, for our public services and for you.

If you have any questions or have a problem with your postal vote, or have not yet received your polling card, contact BMBC Electoral Services on 01226 773070.

Barnsley Central: A Lib Dem meets a Ferret

2011-02-14T21:35:00.001Z

The column I turn to first in my local paper, The Barnsley Chronicle is "Ferret". This is where the funny bits and pieces from the council chamber and around the borough, are reported by the anonymous reporter. He is, if you will, the Chronicle's own version of "The Stig"

Last week Ferret was on top form, reporting a visit by "Dominic Somebody-or-other", who was after information about Barnsley, as he hoped to become the Lib Dem PPC in the forthcoming by-election. Ferret was, understandably, put out by the assumption that he would help a chap who "had been to Barnsley at least once," and who wanted a crash course in all things relating to the town. (Ferret has a wonderful way of describing the meeting and his complete lack of interest in it.)

As it turned out Dominic Somebody-or-other was selected on Saturday by the Lib Dems to fight the Barnsley Central by-election.

All I can say is that again, the Lib Dems are demonstrating just how little they care about Barnsley and the people they seek to represent. But if Dominic Carman actually has been to Barnsley he is at least one up on the Lib Dems last PPC, Chris Wiggin. He didn't bother visiting the town at all, didn't bother putting out one leaflet and didn't even bother showing up for the count. Obviously, he took the whole thing very seriously, as I'm sure Mr Carman will.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

In a Perfect World, We'd All Sing in Tune.

2011-01-28T22:01:00.000Z

Doing a straw poll of what we want from our politicians leads to many answers, almost universally at the moment, given the recent issues with expenses, the first answer is "honesty". It comes within a heartbeat, no thought necessary. The reputation of politicians has been so desperately tarnished by a few who genuinely intended to commit fraud, the many who were just following a system that was wrong in the first place and those who made promises they never imagined they would be called on to keep, that dishonesty has become synonymous with politics.

Some say politicians should "understand the lives of real-people", implying in some way that politicians are not real people, and there's the rub.

No one, when asked what qualities they expect in an MP, ever answers "perfection". Yet, increasingly, the press are convincing us, the political establishment, party PR and press officials and party leaders, that this is what we should have.

So, is it any wonder that we are breeding a political elite, using the well-trodden path from university, to intern/working for MP, to Special Advisor, to MP? The party leaderships are grateful to have someone who has not had chance of a real-life, with all the potential for mistakes, drunkenness and God-forbid, photographs of them looking a bit tipsy on Facebook. This means they love those few, often socially awkward types, who began nursery and immediately found someone to carry their bag for them. Those who wanted to be "in politics", almost from birth and have always lived (or not) their lives with that in mind.

Today, with the vast numbers of people using Social Media, those embarrassing photographs that would have been hidden at the back of the drawer in your Mother's side-board, are now online for everyone to see. Have a few drinks at a party, someone gets their phone out and everyone does daft things for the camera and suddenly there you are, twitpicced drinking from a bottle of Jack Daniels. A few retweets and kaboom, several thousand people see it, instead of just the six people you were larking about with.

Training for potential future parliamentary candidates includes telling hopefuls, that the public expect you to look like a politician, that you have to be aware of everything you do, so that there is no future potential for scandal, adding to the skeletons you may already have rattling around your closet. This means, because of the fear of what the press may do, if we want any chance of a political career, we must be aware of every minute detail of everything we do.

As I see it, there is no option but to create the MP4000, an android that always looks polished, will never get drunk, slip out a swear word, say what they really think, because obviously, we do not allow them to think, joke or sadly, make mistakes. Our politicians, cannot be "real-people" any more. The press won't allow it and the fear of the press in the corridors of Westminster, the offices of the party officials and leaders, means that yet again, the press set the agenda for the type of people we have representing us and too often, they are nothing like us.

Too many people who would be the best representatives of the public and the most formidable fighters for truth and justice, will not consider "entering the lion's den". Or worse, they do and are slapped down because they once did something they now regret - even if it was when they were sixteen. I tweeted a few weeks ago:

"At least all the embarrassing things I said when I was young, are lost in the shadows of time. #GladThereWasNoTwitterThen"

When I think what sixteen-to-twenty-year-old me would probably be saying on Twitter I cringe - there would be lots of embarrassing tweets about boys and dancing. There would also be lots of tweets about shoes and something about an undying love for George Michael... Oh, actually, I think I have probably tweeted something along the lines of those last two anyway, but never mind eh?

So, who do we want standing up for us, speaking out against those who would do us injustice, banging the drum for our families, our livelihoods and our futures? Me? I want someone I can relate to. I'm almost 40. I only became actively interested in politics when I was 27. I've made many mistakes in my life - because I've had one. So whoever represents me, I hope they have lived a little too, it would be so sad if they hadn't.

If we cannot have the real-people we actually need; understanding what it is like to look at price-tags before buying something, not just leaving that to the accountant at tax return time, who will we get? If we allow the press to convince us that perfection is a requirement for the politicos, then we shall always be under-represented, worse off and destined for failure. To quote Osgood Fielding III from my favourite film, 'Some Like It Hot': "Nobody's perfect!" and as Billy Bragg so perfectly put it, in 'Waiting for the Great Leap Forwards':

"In a perfect world we'd all sing in tune, but this is reality so give me some room"

#TCheesXmasTwessage 2010

2010-12-25T22:42:00.000Z

For the second year running, I did a Christmas Message on Twitter. A "twessage" as it were. Below is a transcript of the tweets.

Every Christmas I sit among the joy for a few sad moments & remember people who are no longer here to share it with us. #TCheesXmasTwessage

This isn't a sad twessage-it's natural to remember those who have passed when we are gathering to celebrate any occasion #TCheesXmasTwessage

It also reminds us to be thankful for those who _are_ with us, whether it is loved ones, family or friends. #TCheesXmasTwessage

If you've lost someone,take a moment in sorrow for not having them near &honour their memory by cherishing those who are #TCheesXmasTwessage

In these paradoxical times of cuts and consumerism, what is the best thing we can give to our family and friends? #TCheesXmasTwessage

The best thing is something that matters all year round. It can be given freely and means more than anything.It is time. #TCheesXmasTwessage

2 minutes to watch your child sing a song,an hour to have a cuppa with your Nan, 30 secs to give a much-needed hug. #TCheesChristmasTwessage

Time that you will never miss but that will mean the world to someone. So, as this twessage draws to an end, #TCheesXmasTwessage

I will leave you with one wish: May you always give, & be given, the time to always feel loved & appreciated. #TCheesXmasTwessage

Merry Christmas from @CllrTim, the Children & me. We hope that 2011 is a happy, healthy & prosperous year for you all. #TCheesXmasTwessage

An Open Letter to Students from Vice-Chancellor of Huddersfield University

2010-12-14T12:49:00.000Z

This is an open email sent to all students of the University of Huddersfield by Vice Chancellor Professor Bob Cryan. Admirable and an example to all.

As Professor Cryan points out, the cuts to teaching funding for the University equate to 80% and this cost is being transferred to the student. As a former Huddersfield student himself and in recognition of the fact that future students will be taking on a 30-year debt, he is creating a student support fund for the University, contributed to by himself so that in effect he pays the University for his education at the new fee rates and benefits future students.

Tuition Fees

The government policy on tuition fees was carried through parliament yesterday with a majority of 21 votes. It agreed a tuition fee range of between £6,000 and £9,000. This, taken together with the 80% cut in University teaching funding, represents the biggest change in higher education funding in nearly a century. We have made it clear that the University of Huddersfield and the University of Huddersfield Students’ Union fundamentally disagree with the reduction in state support for teaching, and in passing on costs to students. But between 2012 and 2014 we will lose the bulk of our Government funding. To maintain the quality of our provision, to ensure our students get the very best educational opportunities, and to preserve jobs, we now have little choice but to work with the new system. We now need to focus our energies on dealing with the practicalities.

We must begin by ensuring that there is no confusion for our existing students. Those students that are already with us will not be affected by the changes. The new fee regime applies only to those students that begin their courses in 2012. Current students will continue to pay the £3,290 tuition fee.

I am not prepared to allow a change in Government policy, however extreme, to undermine the good things we have achieved together at our University. We begin this process of change and adaptation in a far stronger position than many other universities. Our financial strength puts us in the top 25% of the university sector and gives us time to plan the changes we need to make. We have already put in train a major change programme that will reduce waste, improve efficiency, enhance effectiveness, reduce cost and seek additional income. I am sure that, by the University and the Students’ Union working closely together, at the end of this process we will be a stronger and fitter institution.

From 2012 our students will have to pay higher fees to compensate for the 80%+ cut in teaching funding that we will receive and they will have 30 years to pay it back. I cannot ask our future students to do this without being prepared to do it myself. I have benefitted from an outstanding education at the University of Huddersfield and so, once we have set our fee levels, I intend to take on the same 30 year tuition fee debt as our future students and will set up a standing order to make payments directly to a student support fund for our University.

I would like to finish by paying tribute to the University of Huddersfield Students’ Union for the way in which they have lobbied on the issue and at all times behaved with the utmost professionalism. They have been an exemplar for other Students’ Unions to follow.

Professor Bob Cryan
Vice-Chancellor
University of Huddersfield

My Conference Speech, Posted for Breast Cancer Awareness Month

2010-10-28T16:27:00.001+01:00

At Labour Conference 2010, I was all set to speak in the Health Debate. Unfortunately I wasn't called, but as October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I am going to share what I would have said with you, here.

Three years ago this week, I had the last in what had been seven months of chemotherapy treatment for breast cancer. I was 35 when diagnosed and my children were 8, 5 and 3. It was a devastating blow to us all.

Thanks to the Cancer Guarantee, introduced by our Labour Government, I am standing here today; because of Labour's NHS, my husband still has his wife and my children still have their mother.

I was referred by my GP and seen by a cancer specialist in just 8 days and it was just two weeks from that initial consultation that I was wheeled in to theatre for surgery.

Early detection is our greatest weapon in the fight against cancer and Andrew Lansley has assured us that he will keep the fourteen-day cancer guarantee - we were going to reduce it to seven days.

For patients like me, detection is only the beginning. I was fortunate enough to be treated at my local hospital in Barnsley and I pay tribute to the staff in the Breast Unit who cared for me. Barnsley hospital has a satellite centre for cancer treatment, meaning that I could have chemotherapy there, rather than have the additional cost and difficulty of traveling almost 20 miles to Sheffield. It is provision such as this that is at risk under Coalition Health cuts.

The White paper says they will pay hospitals based on outcomes, but it is impossible to calculate a cost for prevention. This then puts at risk early screening programmes that women such as my own daughter will need when she is old enough, due to her family history. Something that is not their fault.

I do not want women like me to be the "waste" that is cut out of the NHS by the Coalition.

We have the right to not worry about whether we can afford our treatment.
We have the right to local care.
We have the right to survive.

I owe a huge debt to the NHS - one I could never repay. Thanks to Labour, I will never have to.

What Price is Clegg Prepared to Pay for Higher Education?

2010-10-11T18:46:00.002+01:00

In March 2006, Stephen Williams, MP for Bristol West said:

"I believe passionately that education should be free at all levels and the fact that the Lib Dems have abolished tuition fees in Scotland shows that it can be done."

I wonder if he still holds this belief as passionately as he did back then?

Along with EVERY elected Liberal Democrat MP, Nick Clegg also signed the pledge while on the election trail and told students that the Lib Dems would "oppose any raising of the cap". Very definite and decisive words that would have convinced many in higher education to back the Liberal Democrats.

In fact, this was one of the Lib Dem's flagship policies - and one of their most popular. It lead to a surge in support from students, with one poll ahead of the general election, showing that 50% of those likely to vote, would vote Liberal Democrat.

So, now it is crunch time. How many of those Liberal Democrat MPs will do the decent thing and stick by their promise? According to the coalition agreement, Lib Dem MPs will be allowed to abstain on any votes on Higher Education Funding - but that is just not good enough.

Clegg and his Lib Dem MPs did not quietly say they would sit on their hands; they said they would oppose, they promised to oppose and they signed a pledge to oppose. Now let us see how they repay the people who did as Nick Clegg asked when he told them:

"Use your vote to block those unfair tuition fees and get them scrapped once and for all."

Osborne Admits Cuts Target the Poor

2010-10-05T21:53:00.000+01:00

In his Evening Standard Blog today, Paul Waugh has published a leaked email sent by George Osborne to Conservative MPs. It seems that Osborne has finally accepted the opinion of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who said in August that contrary to Osborne's claim of a "progressive budget", it was in fact "clearly very regressive".

Again, Osborne demonstrates that despite his claims that we are "all in this together", we are very clearly not. Unless of course he is only speaking to his rich chums or cabinet colleagues. The budget cuts were proven by IFS calculations to hit the poorest in society much harder than the rich. On 25th August, James Browne, senior research economist at the IFS told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that, as a result of the budget cuts:

"[the] poorest tenth of the population are losing more as a percentage of their income than the richest tenth".

But George put his fingers in his ears, went "la la la" and pushed ahead anyway.

Yesterday the ill-conceived idea to cut child benefit was another example of Osborne's fag-packet calculations. On the face of it, it probably seemed a good idea; George may even have thought the left would welcome it.

The desperate attempt to appear 'More Red than Ed' was laughable, as he attempted to explain the cut during his speech to the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham. Earnestly, George posed the question: How can we justify taxing the poor to pay benefits to the rich?

Of course, on face value this is a justified question and George would have been delighted when Kitty Ussher, Director of centre-left think tank Demos said:

“It seems totally insane that people who are not scrabbling around to make ends meet should be getting the same as those who are finding it hard. If you are not living from hand to mouth, you shouldn't have it."

Yet the logistics of the scheme to cut child benefit from higher-rate taxpayers are a joke. How can Osborne explain cutting child benefit from a single-income household bringing in £44k, yet maintain the payment to a joint income household where each partner brings in £43k? Absolute proof of the minuscule amount of thought that actually went into the scheme.

In his email today, George at least shows some of the message has finally got through, as he confesses to his Parliamentary Party:

"I made £11 billion of savings from other parts of the welfare system, many of which affected people on lower incomes"

Unfortunately by the time the full impact of his actions is apparent, it will be way too late. Not for George of course, he will be comfortable with his multi-million pound trust fund, while the rest of us mourn our public services, weep for what is left of our NHS and many will rue the day they ever voted for either half of this ConDem coalition.

Osborne Cuts Child Benefit: We're all in this together kids...

2010-10-04T12:17:00.000+01:00

Today, on Twitter, I made the comment that changing Child Benefit was something I believe Labour should have done a long time ago. Not in the way that George Osborne plans to do it, but in terms of preventing the super-rich from being able to claim it. The responses I received were broadly in agreement - I asked the question: Why should the Beckhams be able to claim it? Why should £20 of taxes paid by working people be given to David and Victoria towards the upkeep of Brooklyn?

This is the issue: the very wealthy do not need it and by giving them this universal benefit, it prevents the money being targeted more effectively. The issue is not about single-parents, I would question whether a single-parent earning £250k per annum should claim it too; neither is it about multiple-income households, it is a hugely complex issue and it appears that George ran out of room on the back of the postage stamp he is writing his ideas on.

George Osborne is making a huge mistake in trying to pretend he is making the rich pay more. As ever, he has tried to over-simplify a very complicated issue and come out with completely the wrong result. Yes, there should be a review of how Child Benefit is paid, but doing so with no consideration to overall household income, is not the way to do it.

This Election is brought to you by Sky.

2010-09-04T19:55:00.001+01:00

Tomorrow, there will be a televised debate on Sky, between the Labour Leadership contenders.

Perhaps we should let Sky run all our elections from now on. Although, they certainly seemed to dictate the last one, and look where that got us!

We could all tune in for special Sky Election Events, a Gladiators special, where the candidates face off against Oblivion, Spartan and Battleaxe, before a final showdown between the two who make it to the eliminator. The winner gets a primetime three-minute broadcast to convince us to give them our votes, while backstage, Konnie Huq consoles the losers, Live on Sky Two, 'Election Extra'.

Simon Cowell could get in on the act too, how about Britain's Got MP's where the candidates appear before a special panel of judges, featuring Adam Boulton, Jon Snow and, (as ever) Cowell himself. If one turns up in a dodgy outfit, Cowell could give us his expert analysis "I know politics is showbiz for the ugly, but do you think that frock would cut it on the floor of the Commons? On the positive side, lovely speaking voice. Seriously, you'd be better off in a call centre."

If one of the candidates dared confront Boulton with a challenge to his opinion, we could see a tantrum better than anything Sharon Osbourne ever pulled off. His face would turn even more puce than usual, he'd splutter and gesticulate until he keeled over and Alastair Campbell would be called in as a temporary guest judge.

In the early heats, Vince Cable could shuffle on and deliver his monologue, while the judges roll their eyes and eventually Cowell holds up his hand, "Vince, I'm hearing what you say but I'm not feeling it. Do you have a back up songsheet to sing from? One that is a polar opposite to that one?"

When Dermot O'Leary announces the arrival of Same Difference, the audience is agog, as out walk Cameron & Clegg, singing a painful version of 'I Got You Babe'. They are allowed to get almost all the way through but then Cowell stops them, points to Clegg and says "You aren't bad but I think he's holding you back, would you like to come back and audition on your own?"

On the other hand, why don't we save ourselves the trouble and just phone Rupert as soon as any election is called and he can tell us who's won straight away.

Cameron the Carpetbagger

2010-08-01T20:15:00.002+01:00

By Tracey and Tim Cheetham

This week has seen Cameron jetting around, trying to bolster his reputation as an International Statesman, while at the same time, clocking up an impressive list of nations to insult, including his own. His most recent visit was to be the “Jewel in the Crown” (see what I did there?) of the trip, an attempt to build links with the modern India, a fast-developing nation, second only to China in terms of population.

On the surface, a diplomatic visit to India could be a good idea; many UK companies have Contact Centres based in the country and links with the UK are strong. Historically, India has been a cheap supplier of goods and services to the UK, but now it has one of the fastest growing economies and trade opportunities are opening up in the opposite direction – Cameron would have us believe this is why he popped in for a cup of chai.

There is a clue to the true purpose of the visit though, when one examines the list of people included in Cameron's surprisingly large delegation. In addition to the Prime Minister, there were six other Cabinet Ministers, these included Foreign Secretary William Hague, Chancellor George Osborne and Business Secretary, Vince Cable. Fair enough for a trade jolly, you may think, but keep going down the list and you will find 50, (yes FIFTY) business 'leaders', you know the type, the kind of bigwigs who may also be major Conservative party donors, who knows? Significantly the list includes the likes of Dick Olver, Chairman of BAE Systems, Graham Cole, Managing Director of Agusta Westland and Rolls Royce, Director of Global Corporate Development, Miles Cowdry. What do these three men have in common? Simple – they are three of the biggest manufacturers and suppliers of arms. BAE Systems is Europe's largest Arms merchant, in fact.

Currently on the table is a £700Million arms deal for the supply of fifty-seven Hawk Jets to India. This would appear to be the real reason for Cameron's visit to the subcontinent – he is acting as a salesman (at our expense) for the British Arms Industry. Now, don't get too proud of that, it's not a nationalised industry or anything like that. These are privately held companies and PLC's who make enormous profits every year. We don't benefit from that, they're arms dealers, hardly anyone benefits from their trade, except them. Cameron and Co. saw the deal being signed on 28th July at the Hindustan Aeronautics' Headquarters in Bangalore.

The scale of the cuts that the British public are having to face, pales into insignificance when considering the poverty that exists in parts of India. Still, the moral implications of this deal are far from the minds of those involved in brokering it. The apologists for this sort of Governmental wheeler dealing will defend it by citing the high number of UK manufacturing jobs it will create, but this idea is a fallacy. The Jets are to be manufactured by Hindustan Aeronautics at their plant in Bangalore and BAE Systems will provide “support” from the UK. According to the Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT), only 200 UK jobs will be created by the deal, that's £3.5million per job. Hands up anyone who could create 200 jobs for less... Forgemasters of Sheffield were going to do precisely that, with a LOAN of £80Million, but the ConDems apparently feel that this arms deal is better value.

UK taxpayers, who are facing the consequences of the Government's short-sighted economic policy are subsidising the UK Arms Industry to the tune of at least £453Million and up to £936Million. In fact, using jobs as a justification for arms exports, or this subsidy, is ridiculous when they account for just 0.7% of total UK employment and of that figure, less than 6% are employed in manufacturing. The ConDems have already cut the Future Jobs Fund, a scheme of subsidising work and funding training and development for young people and the long term unemployed. Yet, the UK employs around 65,000 people in the 'defence' industries at, (according to the MoD's own figures) an average subsidy of £13,000 per job, per year. Part of that subsidy amount is the estimated £5Million per year spent on 'Official Visits' of the sort Cameron and his massive entourage have recently enjoyed.

When Cameron dedicates so much of his energy, (and our money) to this deal, we are again reminded of the priorities of his ConDem coalition. This is yet another concession to big business, a Conservative tradition that Cameron has been keen to distance his party from. In February, when he launched an attack on lobbying by business, he bemoaned “Crony Capitalism” and promised to shine a light on:

“an issue that exposes the far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money.”

Perhaps most worrying of all, is the political rhetoric surrounding the trip. Cameron has faced criticism for his inflammatory words about Pakistan. Words that have caused outrage and anger and even lead to the burning of his effigy on the streets of Karachi. It would be easy to dismiss this, as many commentators will, as foolish. When considering the background and the facts above, stoking the fires of tension in a region where he has a vested interest in the sale of conflict weapon systems, looks anything but foolish. It looks deliberate, calculated and most of all, very sinister.

Missiles and Missed Opportunities

2010-07-28T15:49:00.003+01:00

Nuclear weapons have been part of the UK's defence programme since 1952, with Trident in place since 1994. The arguments for and against the UK having a nuclear weapons system have rumbled on for a long time but now, with the deep cuts being inflicted by the Conservative Lib Dem Coalition, it is time to look more closely at the moral and economic justifications for maintaining Trident.

Trident consists of four nuclear submarines, from which there is one on active duty at all times. Each of the Trident submarines can carry forty-eight nuclear warheads with an explosive power of up to 100 kilotonnes. The bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima on 6th August 1945, had an estimated power of 12 - 15 kilotonnes. The true number of people it killed will probably never be known, but estimates of the five-year death toll exceed 200,000 people.

In 1968 the British Government ratified the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, (NPT); currently 189 countries have done so and as part of this, they agree to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, to work towards complete nuclear disarmament and peaceful use of nuclear technology. Indeed, Article VI of the treaty states:

"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

So the UK has an obligation to actively pursue disarmament. With Trident requiring such enormous investment, what a perfect opportunity to do so, yet the Coalition insists it is committed to the renewal of Trident and Liam Fox has insisted that he will not include it in the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) that is underway.

The cost of replacing the Trident submarines is estimated at £20billion and estimates for the lifetime cost of maintenance of the system exceed £80billion, so surely, with the level of cuts being imposed by this government across the board, Trident MUST be included in the SDSR.

In June, Dr Liam Fox promised that the nuclear element of our defence systems was safe from the Chancellor's axe and recently he was still stating that it would not be included in the general defence budget. Yet yesterday, George Osborne said:

"I have made it very clear that Trident renewal costs must be taken as part of the defence budget."

So which is it? With public spending being cut to the bone and the effect that will have on the lives of the public, is it right to prioritise a not-likely-to-be-used nuclear weapons programme? Do we actually need a nuclear submarine on active patrol at all times?

Osborne has opened up another dilemma for Fox here though. If Trident is to be included in the general defence budget, where will he find the money for the equipment and resources needed to supply our troops? As Dr Fox himself admitted, earlier this month:

"To take the capital cost would make it very difficult to maintain what we are currently doing in terms of capability."

Maybe that is the real reason for the hasty withdrawal of our forces from Afghanistan? Is it a choice, Afghanistan or Trident?

Nonetheless, it definitely is a choice of which has greater priority between Trident and Public Services. It is a question that Nick Clegg asked himself last year, and he arrived at this conclusion:

“Given that we need to ask ourselves big questions about what our priorities are, we have arrived at the view that a like-for-like Trident replacement is not the right thing to do.”

This was a flagship Lib Dem policy - and one that many in the Labour party agreed with. So what changed his mind? Was it again the lure of power? Is this another example of Clegg forfeiting principles for portfolio?

In the current economic climate, ordinary people are facing a bleak future of stripped-back public services, job losses and withdrawal of welfare. To push ahead with the replacement of Trident and the financial commitment it requires with no review is irresponsible, a poor use of available funds and, as with many things that the Lib Dems and Nick Clegg are doing, unprincipled.

No Honeymoon Polling for Clegg

2010-07-27T15:05:00.001+01:00

With all new relationships there comes the initial honeymoon period. That time when you are still trying to impress and be the person you think the object of your affection wants/needs/deserves. Well, Cameron and Clegg have been partnered for 75 days now and that honeymoon doesn't seem to be going so well... In fact, if I was Clegg and it was my honeymoon, I'd be checking my travel insurance to see if it covered me for a hasty getaway!

The problem is, Clegg doesn't want to get away. I like the comparison of the Lib Dems being stuck in a political form of Stockholm Syndrome, it fits well. They are desperately trying to maintain the impression that they somehow achieved power, when in fact, they sold their souls to the devil to have it for a short time - or at least, Clegg did that for them. As today's Telegraph reports, 42% of Lib Dems would have changed their vote if they had known they would end up in a coalition with David Cameron's Conservative Party. In addition, 37% of Lib Dem voters felt that the party had been dishonest about the scale of cuts planned.

Also reported is Norman Tebbit admitting that the Tories only need the Lib Dems for short-term gain and warning Cameron about not making too many concessions to please his Coalition Partner, as he said on Newsnight:

"We have to be careful that we do not slide into making constitutional reforms to please our Lib Dem colleagues, which are of infinitely greater long-term importance than some of the short-term economic decisions in which we need their help,"

The Lib Dems are sliding in the ratings, with the latest polling average from UK Polling showing them to be on just 14% to Labour's 35% and the Tories' 43%. This coalition could turn out to be the worst move a Lib Dem leader ever made.

Cancer - Physical Recovery is a Small Part of the Journey

2010-07-24T22:22:00.001+01:00

Recently, I was asked via Formspring, the "ask me anything" website, how it felt to be a cancer survivor. This got me thinking and I have subsequently been self-analysing ever since. Am I a cancer survivor? The truth is, at this stage I still do not know. I have some way to go before I am discharged by the hospital and am still undergoing preventative treatment. This doesn't mean that my outlook is negative or that I am not optimistic for the future, I most definitely am, the issue lies in confidence. I have to stress, that I am not generalising, cancer is a very personal journey and this is just how I feel. Others are affected to varying degrees, all of which are completely normal.

Physically, cancer is devastating. When I look at my body and the changes inflicted upon it by cancer, I am still incredibly upset. It is something I can never escape. Every time I look in the mirror, I see the scars from my initial surgeries and the subsequent reconstruction operations. At my lowest moments I see ugly mutilation, at my best, I see that they have faded a lot and that I had a great surgeon. Nonetheless, they are scars that will never fade completely. I am so thankful that I am happily married and that my husband loves me, scars and all. Some of the damaging effects of seven-months of chemotherapy are still with me, my hair grew back, but the weight I put on has not all gone yet and I still can't play the sports that I used to enjoy as a result, but importantly, I know I will get there.

It is psychologically, where cancer is much more destructive. That is where cancer wins as far as I am concerned. I don't think I will ever get my confidence back to the level it was. I was a feisty woman, a tough career girl, who climbed the ladder and thought nothing of presenting to conferences and meetings, taking on the Directors at Board Meetings and fighting my corner. Now, I sometimes turn down invitations and hide behind others because I have lost the courage that I once took for granted.

I can pinpoint and track back every insecurity to my cancer. There are two periods in my life, BC and AC, Before Cancer and After Cancer, almost everything goes via that filter.

Not all changes have been negative, I think that in some ways I am nicer now, I take less for granted and have my priorities firmly set. In the BC days I would have been more ruthless and would have played the political game more. AC I value principles and honesty much more and I look for these in the people I am lucky enough to call friends.

My family and friends are the people who have got me through this. My family, especially my husband have been amazing, putting up with the emotional roller-coaster that accompanies a cancer patient. There are periods when I will be fine and even days when I don't think about cancer; then there are periods when the effects of the cancer are apparent and I have to fight the desire to just curl up and hide away.

Thankfully, I also have the most amazing friends. They rallied round when I was desperately ill, came to the hospital, cheered me up, stayed with me for days, looked after the children, held my hand and let me cry about my fears and worries, one even drove to see me on the day he was released from hospital after a road accident. Just being there for me, then and still. Even now, it is the little things, that they do that mean the world. For example, I realised recently that I have no female friends who would even think about flaunting their cleavage around me - not that I have ever asked them not to, but as one of them said, "It is something that friends would think about, without being asked and without asking if you are bothered or not." It is little things like that, that remind me of how lucky I am. (In all honesty, until pretty recently it would have upset me enormously, but until that conversation with my friend, I didn't realise it.)

It is impossible to cover all the little ways that my life is different, but if you ever ask me to go somewhere and I give a flimsy excuse, this could be why. I'm sorry, it's not you, it's me, I'm not the girl I once was and I miss her. The future holds all manner of possibilities, I am hopeful and optimistic that I will, one day, be ready to take on the world again, and win.

Society ConDemned

2010-07-20T18:15:00.003+01:00

I must be honest, being in opposition sucks. Having to stand by and watch as Nick and Dave's ConDem Coalition sets about systematically destroying everything they can lay their hands on, is dispiriting, gut-wrenching and terrifying.

I think Sally Bercow put it best, when on BBC Question Time, she compared their actions with those of a 6-year-old, who gets a new toy and the first thing they do is to take it apart. This wanton destruction of systems and institutions that have taken generations to establish is beyond someone trying to put their stamp of authority on things. I hate to say it, but I think even Thatcher wouldn't go this far.

Two, privileged men of considerable means, overseeing the biggest dismantling of society that the Tories could ever dream of getting away with. Of course, I blame Clegg, without him, Cameron would have had no chance of getting much of this legislation through parliament. Without the Lib Dems voting with their Leader to preserve and extend their temporary residence in the corridors of power, the Tories would be begging and negotiating with MPs of all parties to try and achieve their flawed plans.

I know, I sound angry, but do you know what? I AM ANGRY! I am standing like Linda Hamilton in Terminator 2, clinging on to the fence as I watch a ConDem Nuclear Holocaust wipe out our public services. Over dramatic? No. Believe me, I am being very restrained. There are all sorts of words that I would use to describe the Tory leader and his megolamaniac Partner-in-crime, but I am not going to bring this post into the gutter, where they belong.

It wouldn't be so bad, if it were not the impression that they are loving every single second of what they are doing - like a couple of boys who have snuck into a building site and found the keys had been left in the wrecking ball - what fun!

Except it is not fun for those who feel the effect of what they do. As with any crime (and I class this political vandalism of society as one of the worst) there are victims and unfortunately as a result of this one, their number stretches into the millions. It is as though the poor, the sick, the young, the disadvantaged and those in most need are being deliberately punished. Of course, Osborne likes to tell us that we are all in this together but I don't see that at all.

I see the NHS being dismantled and opened up like a dressed crab, ready for private companies to start taking over and taking their share, I see Education being turned into a marketplace, where Cameron welcomes the various organisations, businesses and foundations that want to run our schools to suit their own agendas and I see Welfare being stripped back to the point where poverty will soon become the norm for thousands of families who do not fit into the ConDem Coalition's ideal. Unlike Cameron, Clegg and their Ministers, I see real people.

I see people like the father of a colleague, who has been told he cannot have his benefits any more, because he is no longer disabled. He can get out and get a job - I'm not sure how his amputated leg has grown back, but they clearly think it must have as even on appeal, this judgement was upheld and he is having to try to get recourse through his MP.

I see people like a single-parent friend, who is terrified that she will lose her benefits if she cannot take a job because it means that she will be unable to care for her children and continue being a carer to her elderly, disabled mother. She cannot get on her bike and take a job elsewhere just to suit Iain Duncan Smith and his lunacy.

I also see children who do not matter to the likes of Michael Gove, because he thinks that his responsibility ends at ensuring someone, anyone is offering an education of sorts; gone are the days of Every Child Matters - get used to it, they don't.

Public Sector jobs are essential to communities across the country, lose them and the shockwaves spread into every local business, corner shop, pub and working men's club. This isn't creation of a Big Society, it is annihilation of the one we had restored and nurtured after the last time the Tories declared civil war on blue-collar industries and communities that relied on them. (Yes, I am harping on about mining again!)

With the Coalition's Office for Budget Responsibility admitting that it made "last minute changes" to its estimates of job losses prior to Osborne's axe-swinging, which made the figures lower by 175,000, they clearly cannot be trusted to either keep the well-being of the populace at the centre of their policies or to be honest over the true impact they will have.

Dishonest, Destructive, Detatched from reality, Dispicable. I rarely hate, I'm a naturally compassionate person who tends to see the good in people, even the really bad ones. But this time, I'm at a loss. I can see nothing of any value, no good or positive qualities and absolutely no care or consideration in Cameron or Clegg. I only hope that they do not get to complete their mission before enough of the Lib Dem's wake up, see the pit of hell they are being dragged into and start to try to restore the heart and soul of their party before they reach the event horizon.

At some point in the future, Labour will return to power. Then the work of restoration will begin and it will be the biggest job we have ever had to do. Rebuilding communities for the second time, remaking the infrastructure of our education system, mending the NHS or maybe even having to begin a National Health Service all over again. The biggest task will be restoring faith in government and politicians after the ultimate betrayal of voter's trust. We are a party of fighters and now, more than ever, we need to harness that spirit and dig in. Help us to maintain hope. Join us.

We Are Labour - A Rallying Call to the Grassroots

2010-06-30T23:15:00.002+01:00

Without a doubt, this is a watershed moment in Labour party history. The loss of power at the General Election has given us the greatest signal possible that we need to change. Not only a change of leader, but a change in how the Labour party is perceived. At the last General Election, we earned our lowest share of the vote since universal suffrage (h/t Ed Miliband) and that alone should be a wake-up call of epic proportion. If we could not defeat a party that openly admitted that it would make life difficult for the very people the Labour party was created to defend, then we were getting many things very wrong.

It is a cliché to say that failure is an opportunity but in this case it really is. Labour has achieved so much to be proud of during its thirteen years in government and has implemented some of the most socialist policy this country has ever seen. After eighteen years of Tory mismanagement of public services, it was up to Labour to put things right. We repaired the crumbling buildings of our hospitals and schools or built new facilities to replace them; we ensured that parents were able to contribute to the workforce with tax credits and childcare support to help them and we ensured that everyone who did work, was paid a minimum wage.

We can rightly point to these achievements as a record we should be proud of but the public need more. The public remember the things we didn't get right, despite the economic downturn being a GLOBAL phenomenon, there are many who still try to lay the blame solely at the feet of the Labour government. There were things we could have done to prevent the bankers having such an impact and this is a lesson we must demonstrate that we have learned.

By far the biggest issue that we must, as a party, prove that we have learned from, is the fact that we did not listen. Members deserted us in their thousands because they felt that there was no point in being in the party when they had the same lack of influence from outside. The party conference became a PR extravaganza and was not about discussion, debate or formulating policy. Members felt that they were unable to influence policy, so they gave up and walked away. A huge number of people protested against the invasion of Iraq, did we listen?

This is where we failed. Labour became a party that was managed and the leaders created a top-down infrastructure, where policy and process was managed and dictated from above.

This is our chance to put that right. Although I'm sure the grassroots would still rather have a Labour government, the election defeat has handed them the best possible opportunity to reclaim their party. The Leader that we choose must be inclusive, open, willing to share responsibility and ready to listen and, most important of all, to lead us, not manage us. It is time to allow the New Labour brand to fade into history. It served its purpose, made us electable and then, became a caricature of itself, a self-serving parody, with its faults magnified and satirised.

When I hear Ed Balls say that we must “cling on to the foundations of New Labour”, my heart sinks. This is exactly the opposite to what we should do. We must celebrate our achievements and firmly and clearly sound the clarion call “WE ARE LABOUR”. The New Labour label comes with far too much baggage, it is dated, worn and will forever be associated with spin, Blair and Iraq. It is time to move on. As a party we must move forward and look to the future.

What Labour Giveth, Gove Taketh Away

2010-06-09T00:29:00.000+01:00

As George Osborne calls for every Cabinet Minister to appear before a panel to justify every single penny of their department budget, we are reminded yet again of just how little the future generation really means to this ConDem Coalition.

While Ed Balls was planning to extend eligibility for Free School Meals, Michael Gove is announcing his plans to cut it. Yet again, those who are feeling the true brunt of the cuts the ConDems seem to relish telling us about, are exactly the ones who cannot afford to take it. The families who were to benefit from the extension of the criteria, were those on the lowest incomes. In addition to ending the stigma that can exist for those children on Free School Meals, the Child Poverty Action Group calculates that 55,000 children would have been lifted out of poverty by this move. As they say on their website:

"Article 27 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that every child has the right ’to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development‘. The Government is under a duty to provide ’material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition‘. No child in the UK should go hungry."

Research has demonstrated that school meals are higher in nutritional value than packed lunches, with only 1% of lunchboxes meeting the advised nutritional standards. Further, more than a quarter contained snack foods, sweets, and sugary drinks, items that had been banned under the 2006 standards for healthy eating in LEA schools. Guidelines stated that school meals are to contain protein-rich foods and low fat starchy foods, in addition to meeting the "five-a-day" requirement for fruit and vegetables. In contrast, the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health reported that only one in five packed lunches contained any quantity of vegetables or salad.

The link between good nutrition, good health and learning has long been established and helps children from poor backgrounds to avoid poverty in adulthood. The benefits and positive effects to other services such as the NHS also strengthen the case for protecting this right.

Ensuring a healthy diet is vital for children from all backgrounds, but ensuring a nutritious meal for children who may otherwise not get one, is an important step and for Michael Gove to dismiss the needs of the poorest in this way, yet again, demonstrates the true priorities of his party.

Why a Strong Labour Leader Will Gladly Give Members a Voice

2010-06-07T19:48:00.001+01:00

I hope that the Labour Leadership campaign will bring real choice to the party members. A wide field of candidates benefits us all and allows us to debate the issues, whether they be the economy, education, employment, taxation or immigration. An open discussion is the only way that members will know exactly where each candidate stands on the issues that matter to them.

In exactly the same way that no sensible person would blindly agree with everything their party does, I do not expect that one candidate would have absolutely everything an individual member wants. This is why the leadership hustings are vital to the process and why I would urge all members to try and attend at least one, so that they can find the candidate who best represents their views.

I am delighted that the contest for a new Leader has opened up debate within the party. This is such a positive step and demonstrates that we are indeed a broad church with members as diverse as Tony Benn and Tony Blair (as someone highlighted to me on Formspring). In exactly the same way that a successful relationship requires give and take and acceptance of differences, as members of the Labour party, we can also respect the diverse opinions whilst celebrating the common beliefs that have kept us together for so many years.

Whoever our new leader is, it is essential that he or she (however remote that possibility may be) acknowledges and encourages the input of the membership. Consultation and inclusion will ensure that members believe that being on the "inside" is worth it - that they have a direct influence on the direction the party takes. I have spoken to so many former members, who said they left because they felt unwanted and disenfranchised. If we are to reach out to those people, who once stood shoulder to shoulder with us, we have to demonstrate that we have learned from our past mistakes in this regard. This will also enable us to reconnect with the voters who turned away from us in the recent election.

The direction our party takes from this point on should be determined by a strong leader, who understands the importance of listening. As I recently commented on Twitter, "We do not want a manager, we want a voice", a strong leader will not be frightened to give us one.

We Are Choosing a Leader, Let's Play Fair.

2010-06-02T15:15:00.000+01:00

As the competition to become the next Labour Leader increases in intensity, it is interesting to see the manoeuvring and commentary from all sides of the political spectrum. I am however, disheartened to see negative campaigning from some quarters within the Labour party.

Campaign for your chosen candidate, by all means, but not by producing guff that could have come straight from the pens of Guido, Dale or the Bear. I have heard snide comments and read deliberately damaging remarks on blogs and Twitter, some under the faux innocence of “I'm just saying!”.

The Labour party is in a period of huge transition. Most members I know are ready for this and are looking forward to the beginning of a new era. It is a time of hope within the party and with the number of new members joining us, whoever becomes leader must give us an inclusive, truly democratic organisation. One where members matter and know that they really do have a voice when it comes to the important issues, such as policy and selection of candidates.

Whoever the members choose to lead us, should be someone who understands the true meaning of representation. What we do not need is a Manager. We must protect the spirit of democracy and ensure that it is seen to be an integral element of our party's core constitution.

We can return a future strong Labour government, only if we are united as a party. Our strength is in our ability to debate and discuss, this is how the Labour party has survived - we have always been a broad church of members who share a common belief in fairness for all.

No matter who we would like to see as leader, every one of those who have put their name forward is worthy of our consideration, all have the desire to make a difference and all are committed to restoring fairness to our society.

David Laws: When Good People Do Bad Things

2010-05-30T15:14:00.000+01:00

Now that David Laws has resigned, I must stress that I have not changed my opinion at all. I still feel incredible sympathy towards him and his loved ones; I still believe that he did wrong.

The histrionics that certain Lib Dem Tweeps displayed yesterday were ridiculous, so blinkered were they, by their own party tribalism that they refused to see past the fact that Laws was one of theirs and even consider the fact that he had acted wrongly. As someone who has previously criticised ALL who acted dishonourably in relation to parliamentary expenses, (of all parties) I appreciated the more reasoned response from the Tory people I follow on Twitter and whose blogs I read regularly, such as Parlez~me~'nTory who posted a very reasonable Tory perspective on this issue. The expenses scandal damaged politics incredibly, the trust and esteem in which politicians were held, plummeted. The politicians who were guilty of wrongful or excessively greedy expenses claims cost us all dearly.

With many Lib Dems accusing the left of homophobia, I also thought that it was the perfect opportunity to remind people of just the sort of attitude that leads people like David Laws to feel that they are unable to live freely and without persecution. Step up Chris Grayling, whose casual homophobic comments regarding bed and breakfast owners having the right to refuse accommodation to gay couples, is evidence of the undercurrent of prejudice that still exists in some pockets of society. For example, the Tory party, whose senior members all seem to have recently changed their minds en masse about gay rights, within the past few months.

I was accused of homophobia, I was blocked and unfollowed for pointing this out. It seems that if a gay Minister does something wrong, to expect him to be punished is homophobic. So had it been Baroness Warsi and we had all called for similar action to be taken against her, I suppose the Lib Dems would be calling us racist? No?

It is important to understand, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Laws' sexuality, religion, or any number of more trivial aspects to his life, is completely irrelevant. This whole situation was about honesty and integrity. There have been openly gay Cabinet Ministers for years and the Lib Dems are hardly an intolerant gang to be in. The issue of sexuality therefore boils down purely to how Laws - and his partner - felt about coming out to family and friends. That is completely separate to submitting a signature on a claim form, that declared the request was legitimate and fell within the (clearly defined) rules about who one may and may not claim rent payments for.

When one consciously takes the decision to knowingly break the rules, one should be punished. It is a shame that someone who was held with high regard across party boundaries demonstrated such poor judgement. Yet again, the biggest losers are parliament and the British people.

Lies & the Lying Laws That Tell Them

2010-05-29T15:31:00.002+01:00

The issue of David Laws' expenses claims is not his sexuality, it is honesty.

When the furore over expenses broke and the Legg letters were issued, Laws proudly announced on his website that he was cleared and had nothing to repay. He also rather piously made a point of being the first MP to declare his expenses in full, three months before other MPs were expected to do the same.

I have said on Twitter that I have enormous sympathy for Laws in relation to the dilemma that he faced. I cannot imagine how it must feel to live a lie and not be able to just be yourself, particularly with your own family.

However, Laws knowingly broke the rules. At some point, he gave his signature to declare that his claims were within the rules and thus, knowingly submitted fraudulent documentation to the House. At that point, Laws lied for financial gain. For that, he should be punished, just like wrongful claimants of Housing Benefit or anyone who has been caught fiddling company expenses.

The accusation that the left are attempting to make political gain through homophobia is wrong. Imagine that Laws had been in a relationship with a woman from whom he was renting a room. How much sympathy would he have been given then? Would anyone have accepted that he shouldn't have to declare the relationship and could continue his wrongful claim of tens of thousands of pounds? Let us not forget that Laws is extremely wealthy, a millionaire, if he wanted to maintain a secret life, I'm sure he could afford to do so, without the financial assistance of the taxpayer.

As an aside, remember how, in my post about Cameron & Clegg's marriage of convenience, I said that after Clegg had so obviously been wearing the trousers thus far, it wouldn't be long before Cameron wanted to flex his muscles a little and take them back. What could be a better way for Cameron to now show Clegg exactly who is boss?

House of Comments

2010-05-27T00:26:00.000+01:00

I really enjoyed recording the House of Comments Political Podcast last night. You can listen to Mark Thompson AKA @MarkReckons, Stuart Sharpe AKA @sshrpe, Darren Bridgeman AKA @Dazmando and Walaa Idris AKA @WalaaIdris on the House of Comments website.

We enjoyed a discussion about the Queen's Speech and the "swingeing cuts" that the ConDems announced. Of course, being the ONLY Labourite, I had some work to do - don't think I convinced them though! ;)

Also on the agenda was Diane Abbott and The Times' new website.

Hope you listen and enjoy. Thanks.

Cameron & Clegg, The Ultimate Marriage of Convenience

2010-05-22T10:51:00.002+01:00

We should be getting used to hearing the phrase "Prime Minister David Cameron" by now, but I don't know about you, it still makes me shudder every time it pops out of my car radio or television.

The framework for the coalition government was agreed in a remarkably short time, probably because of media impatience. The UK press seemed to expect it to be sorted out like one would arrange who was bringing what, to a weekend barbeque. But of course, the media dictated and managed this whole election from the start. When the electorate didn't do exactly what Mr Murdoch, et al told us to, and elect a majority Conservative government, they had a tantrum and demanded the next best thing, the ConDemNation.

The fact that an agreement over coalition and sharing of various responsibilities was possible in such a short space of time, demonstrates that Clegg had already made up his mind and that most of the to-ing and fro-ing and allowing himself to be courted by Labour was for show. Clegg was ready to jump into bed with Dave and the act of stringing Labour along was purely PR to appease those Lib Dems who are positioned to his left.

That Cameron would concede the post of Deputy PM to the leader of a party that holds less than ten percent of all parliamentary seats shows just how much he would sacrifice, to get the power he had assumed would be his. In fact, the number of Lib Dems holding Cabinet positions is extraordinary. The Lib Dems hold five of the senior Cabinet posts, that's more than twenty percent of seats at the Cabinet table.

So, less than ten percent of parliamentary seats control more than twenty percent of the Cabinet. Plus, when Cameron takes his paternity leave, our acting PM will be the leader of a party that actually reduced its mandate to be in the Commons at the election and has just under 9% of total MPs.

One must acknowledge that this has been an enormous achievement for Clegg. To take his party, that let's face it, has some policies sitting to the left of Labour, and to be able to reach an agreement with a party that is at the opposite end of the spectrum on core issues such as Trident, reveals that either Nick Clegg is a fearsome negotiator, or that he, like Cameron, had his eye fixed firmly on the prize of power.

For a party that has long aimed for coalition as their foothold on power, Clegg has more than delivered. This isn't the sliver of power that they hoped for, this is a mighty wedge and if his party can live with forever being remembered as Tory bedfellows, Clegg has done them proud. It has at least proven one of the pre-election warnings from Labour: "Vote Lib Dem, get Tory!" and has done so with style.

There are many commentators predicting how long this coalition will last. I will not be dragged into timescales, I do wonder though, how long it will be before Cameron begins to resent the amount he has given and how much this has emasculated him in the eyes of the electorate. For during the courtship of this ultimate marriage of convenience it was very obviously Clegg who wore the trousers. Now he has moved into Number 10, it won't be long before Cameron wants them back.

The Flocking Election

2010-05-03T15:24:00.001+01:00

This week I received a piece of Election toilet paper, in the form of a shiny leaflet from the BNP, not ideal but there's only one place it is going - I wouldn't want to contaminate my recycling bin. Following their success in the European elections, it is voters in the North-west and where I live, in Yorkshire, that the fascist BNP are targeting their lies and bigotry. They feed off casual comments about immigration and cook up a huge pot of hatred and fear.

This week, the word "bigot" has been on everyone's lips, but in my opinion, for all the wrong reasons. In all honesty, I personally think the media hysteria was ridiculous. This was quite simply, a bloke calling a woman a bigot for saying something a bit dodgy about Eastern Europeans "flocking in". I personally know many people like Gillian Duffy, normal, working-class people, who live in areas that have not enjoyed an easy transition to multi-cultural communities and who say things in the only way they know how. I don't think that at heart, Mrs Duffy is a bigot, I really don't. I think that she said something that demonstrates an inaccurate perception that needs to be addressed. THAT should have been the issue that was pursued, that is the issue that we need to work harder to make sure people understand the truth about and that is the issue that all three of the main party leaders should have been focused on.

Casual racism - especially if there is no intent to offend, or malice behind it - is easy to brush off and ignore. It is simpler to just pretend we didn't hear, or to imply tacit agreement by not challenging the beliefs that lead to comments such as complaining about immigrant groups "flocking in". The BNP commonly use the phrase "flooding in" - everyone I know condemns this, so what is the difference?

Many people will relate to Gillian Duffy and what she said, many people will agree with the basic sentiment she expressed. It is up to us to ensure that we explain why this is wrong, how our country is enriched by immigrants and what would happen if we did not allow immigrants into Brilliant Britain. I was lucky to grow up in a multi-cultural area. I had friends who were of immigrant descent, of all cultures, races and religions. It was the best social education I could have had, I gained an understanding and tolerance that didn't need to be purposely taught. Conversely, intolerance and prejudice IS taught, children are not born racist, they learn it.

It is by not challenging the casual racism in our society that children learn that they are better than Mr & Mrs Wolczek, who live across the road, or Mr Singh at the "Paki shop", they learn that skin colour is something to judge on, that a non-British accent is a sign of being less worthy. This is what we must challenge and this is the real change that we must all strive for.

This was originally posted at House of Twits on 1st May 2010

Why I Support Labour's Cancer Guarantee

2010-05-02T14:15:00.000+01:00

As you may know, I owe my life to the NHS - without the speedy intervention, surgery and chemotherapy I received, I would not be here now, my children would be without their mother and my husband would be without his wife.

This is why I support Labour's Cancer Guarantee. It is vital to ensure that as many people as possible can fight cancer and beat it. Early detection gives the best chance of this and is an essential part of the process. Any cancer patient will tell you, the worst part is waiting, knowing there is something wrong but not knowing whether you have a life-threatening disease and worrying about the future for your children and family. The Cancer Guarantee means that this time is cut to a minimum, with a guarantee of test results within a week.

Tory front-bencher Philip Hammond claimed that the Conservatives also support the guarantee but this is in complete contradiction to the Conservative pledge to abolish government-imposed targets. Making a pie-crust promise is not what is needed in the fight against cancer, patient care demands targets for the detection and treatment of this cruel and indiscriminate disease. Labour have made it a legal right for a patient with suspected cancer, to be given a specialist referral within two-weeks. At the same time, it became a legal right to receive hospital treatment within eighteen-weeks of referral from a GP. Waiting times have fallen across the country, (you can check your local area here) and it is a fact that without this guarantee of fast referral, early testing and quick results, fewer of the women I met on my cancer journey would have survived.

Yet again this demonstrates which party can be trusted with our National Health Service - a service that Labour had to rebuild after 18-years of Tory abuse, of ward closures, neglected hospital facilities and a crumbling infrastructure. Time and time again, the likes of Dan Hannan show the Conservative Party's true colours; the reality behind Cameron's 'party-of-the-people' facade. The simple truth is that the Tories cannot be trusted to protect the NHS and ensure it continues to provide healthcare to all, irrespective of wealth or ability to pay: free at the point of need.

We should all be able to take the right to survive for granted. Make sure that we keep the Cancer Guarantee and ensure that more cancer patients are able to survive and watch their families grow.

I am here for my family because I could rely on the NHS to put my care first. You can too, let's make sure it stays that way. I urge you to please, tell as many people as possible about Labour's Cancer Guarantee.

This was originally posted at House of Twits on Monday 26th April 2010

Healthcare - A Bus or A Taxi?

2010-04-26T20:30:00.000+01:00

A version of this was posted on my blog in July 2009. I have thought I would re-release it, in light of the Sunday Times article I was involved in on 25 April 2010.

I tend to assume that everyone knows that I had cancer, it's not a secret. I have discussed it many times and am happy to do so, if it helps anyone affected by this dreadful disease.

Cancer is devious. It hides, infesting and nesting in your body, allowing you to feel fit and well, while it grows and spreads. I had breast cancer. As a lotions and potions gal, I would daub myself in oily goo after every shower. One Saturday morning I was doing just this in the bathroom when I noticed a strange outline in the lower, outer side of my left breast. I showed my husband, I wasn't worried. I would go and see our surgery's token female doctor and see what she said. The wait for an appointment with her would only be a couple of weeks. My husband spoke slowly and firmly, telling me that I would go on Monday, I would see whichever Doctor was free and I would get it checked out. I huffed but agreed.

My GP said that he didn't think it felt like anything nasty but as he wasn't qualified to make that sort of judgement and as there was definitely something there, he was happy to refer me for further investigation.

A few days later, I went to see the consultant. We parked right outside the door and as I entered the clinic I was immediately impressed with the facilities. The decor was warm and welcoming, there were lovely works of art on the walls, it was obviously very clean. There was a lovely lady at the concierge desk who directed me towards the reception area, where I was to book in. I sat next to my husband in a comfortable chair as we waited and very quickly a very nice lady came to show me through to where I would meet my consultant. I was nervous but pleased, yes, I had definitely made the right choice of clinic. The Consultant certainly didn't disappoint; a genuine, caring man, who greeted us with a smile, shook our hands and indicated for us to sit next to his large desk. He examined me and explained that he would like to start off with a mammogram and when he had checked that, possibly some other tests. The nurse would take me through to the mammogram suite and my husband was taken to the waiting area nearby, with its tea, coffee and biscuits, books and magazines.

I had the mammogram, which was examined by my Consultant immediately and that very same day I was given an ultrasound examination - also analysed immediately. This was followed by 5 core biopsies. All done in one day, no waiting for results between each test, no delays, just cups of tea and staff who regularly came to check if there was anything I needed.

Just a week later, my results were ready and we returned to the clinic to hear the verdict. Again the ambiance was calming and my husband and I were quite relaxed as we waited, I was convinced that there was nothing to worry about, I was far too young for it to be anything serious and I knew clinics like this did lots of tests just to make sure that everything was OK. A nurse came to escort us to the Consultant's room and we were ushered in; again he shook our hands and greeted us warmly. Another Consultant was also in the room, along with a nurse and a lady who was not in uniform, she introduced herself as Jayne. My Consultant was such a lovely man. The type of man who can give you the most dreadful news with a warm and reassuring smile, and that is exactly what he did. I had cancer. Suddenly the people in the room made sense. Jayne was a specialist Nurse and the other Consultant was a Surgeon, he would be doing the operation that the Consultant said I needed. A radical mastectomy.

The Consultant reached for his diary. "When would you like to come in?" he asked.

I looked at my husband. "As soon as possible?" He nodded.

The Consultant flipped a couple of pages and looked up, "Wednesday?"

That was it. Less than a week from the results and just 3 weeks and 5 days after finding it, my cancer was removed by mastectomy with ancillary clearance.

My stay as an in-patient following surgery was comfortable and my care was thorough. I had my own room, I know there were other mastectomy patients in other rooms but at that stage wasn't really up to talking about it, so was glad of the solitude. Nurses and care assistants regularly came into my room to check that I was comfortable and I had a television, telephone and was able to have my electronic games and mobile phone with me. My husband would visit and was able to stay with me as late as he wanted to, no strict visiting hours were inflicted upon us - a good thing too as it was a very traumatic time and I really needed my husband to be around.

It was the same story with my aftercare, comfortable surroundings, thorough attention, absolute dignity and respect from start to finish. The pathology was discussed with us fully and the recommended course of treatment was chemotherapy but this could not begin until I was recovered enough from the surgery.

I was taken to see the chemo suite, where there was a side room for private consultation with 'the wig lady'. Complementary therapies were offered and I would be able to have aromatherapy, shiatsu massage and reflexology. The chemo was given in a small room, with reclining chairs and home comforts. Tea and biscuits were brought before treatment commenced for patients and their partners and it was all very... well, nice!

Cancer is a life changing ordeal. It is often described as a journey and that begs the question - how would you prefer to take a journey, on the bus or in a taxi? My journey was made much easier by the care I was lucky enough to receive, I'm not ashamed to admit that I would make exactly the same choice again, should I ever be unfortunate enough to need to.

We have all seen the adverts for private healthcare and my experience certainly lived up to everything they say. I could not recommend my choice highly enough. Where did I go? Barnsley Hospital NHS Trust. The NHS, it saved my life. The staff in the NHS - they made the experience easier to bear, more comfortable to endure and less traumatic for me and my family. They are heroes and I thank God for them every single day, when I look at my children's smiling faces and appreciate being alive.

A Pre-election Boost for Labour - The Job Figures That Really Count

2010-04-26T11:26:00.001+01:00

Critics will undoubtedly be focusing on the overall figure of those who are “workless” following today's announcement of the latest unemployment figures by the Office of National Statistics. This has shown that the overall number of those of working age, but not in work or claiming benefits, rose by 43,000 in the three months to February this year.

It is an interesting figure but in terms of the value of the information it gives, it receives a disproportionate amount of attention. Especially from those who see a rise as a point-scoring opportunity. Never mind that it could also be affected by some positive changes, such as more students in full-time education, or it could even be a boost for David Cameron's idea of traditional families, with one parent choosing to stay at home to look after the children!

The significant figure that the ONS released, that will be ignored by the opposition in their rush to criticise Labour, is the number of jobless claimants that registered in March. This fell significantly by almost 33,000 and comes after a revised figure for February, showing that jobless claims fell by over 40,000 during that month. This is particularly important because it is the largest drop in unemployment claims since June 1997. This is something that the Tories and Lib Dems will be desperate to keep quiet as it harks back to the halcyon days of the first term of this Labour government, when everyone still loved us.

If this news also ties in with another growth in GDP – as figures being released on Friday are expected to show – it will be a fantastic pre-election boost for Labour's handling of the global economic downturn and proof that the Good Ship "Economy" is safest with Brown at the helm.

This piece was originally posted at House of Twits on Wednesday 21 April 2010

Three Men in a Vote: The Leaders' Debate. General Election 2010 Ch. 3

2010-04-20T00:06:00.000+01:00

The Leaders' Debate was always Cameron's to lose. Expectations of Brown were low, even within his own party - but Cameron was supposed to come out and show everyone that he could be statesmanlike, presidential and a true leader. For Clegg on the other hand, the pressure was off, as the "third man" in this debate, he had no more to prove than to be credible to his party. This benefitted Clegg and allowed him to put in the performance that Cameron was hoping to give us. Polls of immediate public/viewer opinion back this up with all that I have seen giving the "win" to Clegg. But, no one emerged with a bloody nose and no one made any major blunder; except for Cameron's possible hinting that he may wish to nuke China at some future time, it was all pretty tame really.

Before the debate began, I asked Twitter, whether they thought that the Leaders' Debate would have an influence on the election. The majority of responses were in the negative and the summary of the opinions I received was that those viewing were already engaged with politics and the majority had already decided who they were going to vote for. This really made me think that the debates are going to miss the point. The people we need to reach are those who are politically disengaged, we need to demonstrate the value of their vote, show them the impact they can have on a local and national level.

This whole General Election campaign has taken on a new style of operation. It is not about reaching the politically disengaged, it is about Leaders. We are increasingly seeing a presidential campaign and this is not going to benefit any of the other 647 PPCs who are wanting to be elected. Essentially, what we saw tonight was a Party Election Broadcast for the constituencies of Sheffield Hallam, Witney and Kircaldy and Cowdenbeath, for it is only voters in these areas that will be able to vote for Clegg, Cameron and Brown. The rest of us, we vote for a local MP, whose job is to represent our views.

The media are dictating the focus of reporting and even the direction and priorities of the campaign. The next few days will not be about what was said, what the policies and priorities of each party are, or ultimately about who won. What we shall now see, is the media patting themselves on the back, saying "look what we made them do". The analysis and soundbites will fade and it will become reporting about the debate, not the content of the debate.

The build-up to the next debate will begin in earnest and I am fully expecting the media to place more extreme hoops for the leaders to jump through as each is faced. Maybe next time they will request a Krypton Factor style assault course and for the final debate there will be silver lycra costumes, rapidly approaching polystyrene and David Dimbleby will flamboyantly shout, "Bring on the Wall!"

This piece was originally posted at House of Twits on Friday 16th April 2010.

By Your Friends Shall You Be Judged. General Election 2010, Chapter 2.

2010-04-11T23:40:00.000+01:00

Yesterday, David Cameron proudly showed off his new BFF and Conservative Celeb backer Sir Michael Caine again. It has always been a case of one-upmanship between parties when unveiling their latest celeb and it has to be said that the bar was set ridiculously high by Tony Blair in 1997, when he had Downing Street filled to the rafters with the coolest of the cool of British Celebrity.

So, as the Conservatives are so keen for us to know the great and the good who are backing their campaign for a return to government in the forthcoming General Election, I thought it would be a good idea to have a reminder of those celebrities who may be offering their services but never seem to catch Dave in or have their calls returned.

I'm going to begin with someone who until recently, was one of the chosen ones. Leading the Tories' Maths Task force, yes it's “Third-Class” Carol Vorderman, loan-promoter, child-health scaremonger and well, I have a list but I need go no further than to remind you all of her shrill, ranting, cringeful performance on BBC Question Time. 'nuff said.

There is of course another 'national treasure', Jeremy Clarkson, he thinks that it is acceptable to call someone from across the border, who happens to have a sight disability a “one-eyed Scottish idiot”. He is also well known for his absolute denial of man-made Climate Change.

Anyway, let's continue with the daughter of the Baroness, Carol Thatcher. Backstage at The one Show last year, Carol was discussing who would win the Australian Open Tennis tournament. To the horror of those around her, she said “You also have to consider the frogs. You know, that froggy golliwog guy.” There is nothing I need to add here is there?

Moving on to those supporters for whom the married man's tax allowance was invented, the somewhat infamous champions of marriage...

Bill Wyman: Maxim Magazine's No. 10 in their list of “Living Sex Legends”, due to his rather dubious 'achievement' of having slept with over 1000 women. After dating Mandy Smith from when she was 13, he married her when she turned 18 in 1989 – when he was 53. Still, he did have her mother's blessing. Surprisingly, the marriage ended in 1991 and Bill is now married to the third Mrs Wyman.

We could not miss Peter Stringfellow from this list, the 69-year-old lothario and ardent supporter of feminism, with his strip clubs and “Angels”. I wonder if the Tories Tax breaks will encourage Pete to settle down with one of his teenage lovers?

Serial husband Jim Davidson deserves inclusion in a number of categories. He appeared at the Tory party conference in 2000 and has a rap-sheet way too long for this list. A few “highlights”: Topically, with Chris Grayling's recent remarks, Jim was kicked off the TV programme “Hells Kitchen” for making “unacceptable remarks” towards Brian Dowling, another contestant; he did a routine about rape, on stage in Newark in 2007, leading to complaints from audience members and in 2006 Davidson was declared bankrupt, after failing to pay his remaining unpaid taxes of £700,000 from an original back tax bill of £1.5M.

Of course, that leads nicely on to the taxes of another Conservative endorser, Ken Dodd, who was charged with Tax Evasion in 1989 and, although acquitted, had his passport confiscated and had to present HM Inland Revenue with £800,000 in unpaid taxes.

I think one of my favourite Conservative endorsements comes from the President of Zimbabwe himself, Robert Mugabe, who recently said, "We have always related better with the British through the Conservatives than Labour." Nice.

Finally though, I must mention one of the most famously quoted and much vaunted Conservative fans, Phil Collins. But I'm so sorry Dave, it seems that all those hours you spent listening to “In the Air Tonight” were wasted! Here is Phil, speaking in 2005:

“I'd like to grab an opportunity to finally lay to rest a much quoted untruth about my political leanings. I have never been a Conservative, or at least not since being a young teenager. My father voted Conservative, and even his doing that was a hangover from the 50s and 60s, which may have been an influence on me. I'm sick and tired of being thrown in that same old box... "he's got money.... so he must be..." I once said that if taxes were put up to a level where the government took home more than me, then I would consider moving out of the country. The Conservatives were in at that point and I mentioned Labour... if Labour had been in, I would have mentioned Conservative. It was said to make a point over 15 years ago. No one's asked me since. I live outside the UK purely because my wife lived here when we met. End of story.”

Maybe we will dust off that copy of “Against All Odds” for the election after all?

This article was originally posted at www.houseoftwits.co.uk on Friday 9 April.

Brown vs Cameron, General Election 2010, Chapter One

2010-04-10T22:27:00.003+01:00

I'll bet that none of you were expecting that now, were you? The General Election will be held on May 6th – the same day as the local elections, that many of us have been working towards for some time now. It was always the obvious choice, I'm sure in no small part due to the fact that many constituencies would not be able to afford to run two election campaigns, had the general and local elections been held separately.

There can be no doubt that it is going to be four weeks of hard work and stress but what we must do, in addition to working to return a Labour government for an historic fourth term, is to work towards increasing the dignity and respect that parliament should have been maintaining all along.

Too much damage has been done by a few dishonest and greedy politicians. This has further disengaged the electorate and made the cry of “They're all the same” even more commonplace. In some ways I understand this impression, it was politicians of both the Labour and Conservative parties who were held up as the worst offenders and it would be easy – if lazy – politics to tar all MPs and PPCs with the same brush and dismiss them as unfit for public office, when that is clearly not the case. This is a priority and should be a cross-party aim. There are many good people out there, who are entering politics with exactly the experience and knowledge that is needed, as well as having the very noble motive of trying to make people's lives better.

In the Labour party, what we have to focus on is the simple truth that, Labour has policies that will benefit the majority of the population. As much as the Tories are pleading their case as a changed party, every now and again, someone like Nicholas Winterton, Daniel Hannan or Chris Grayling will pop up and give us an insight into what is really said behind closed Tory doors. Cameron's close control manages to keep up the facade that he wants us all to believe but as soon as he looses the reins a little, someone says something he regrets.

This was all too clear today, when David Cameron stood, alone amongst a throng of cherry-picked Conservative supporters, to announce the start of the Tory campaign – right outside Ken Livingstone's old GLC headquarters, County Hall. Cameron stood, the sole figure on a small platform, the centre of attention and leaving no doubt about the pivotal point of the modern Tory party and the only thing they have to base a campaign on.

One only has to look at how Osborne has been noticeably absent recently, Grayling is being swept under the living room rug and hardly any other Tories ever appear alongside Dave because of the damage they keep doing to him and the image he works hard to portray. Dave's clean up of the Tories has consisted of dusting around the ornaments and shoving everything he couldn't sort out quickly, under the sofa.

Shortly after Cameron's performance, Gordon Brown appeared outside Number 10, flanked by his Cabinet. “I am not a team of one, I am one of a team.” he said. The contrast could not be clearer.

Cameron is flying solo, no wing-man and no one to watch his back. His verbosity continues apace and his wife remains his only companion on the campaign trail. He stands for everything he thinks we will fall for and that changes daily - exactly as his slogan promises.

Originally posted at www.houseoftwits.co.uk

formspring.me

2010-03-28T22:17:00.001+01:00

Ask me anything http://formspring.me/traceycheetham

A Reminder

2010-02-24T15:48:00.000Z

Thank you for visiting my blog. I wanted to remind you all that my blogposts can also be found at HouseofTwits, where I am a Labour Front Bencher. It is useful to check there as more people tend to comment and challenge on that site, than here.

Thanks for reading!

Dave and the Dinosaur - The New Old Tories

2010-02-18T18:21:00.000Z

Isn't it amazing how, just when David Cameron thinks he's making progress and actually convincing a few people that his Conservative Party has changed, along comes one of the old boys to mess things up for him. It's as though they sit, sleeping in the corner, while the visitors are tip-toeing by and just when Dave thinks he's home and dry, up pops Grandad and splutters "Bloody ridiculous, working class, they should know their place!"

Today it was Nicholas Winterton, who told Stephen Nolan on Radio 5 Live that it is a "different type of person" who travels by standard class! Apparently, Mr Winterton thinks that he shouldn't have to travel with these people and their "children, noise and activity." He further compounds the offence by saying that people who travel standard class "have a different outlook on life". Yes, I too was open-mouthed by this point. He qualified this by saying "they might be reading a book but I doubt they are undertaking serious work." Obviously, Mr Winterton, having only ever travelled by first class, has never heard of the quiet carriage, where many of these unfortunate souls, are indeed undertaking very serious work indeed. Or maybe they are reading a Jackie Collins, who knows, but nonetheless the blatant snobbery of this Tory dinosaur belies his true feelings about the majority of the people he is elected to serve. In fact, Mr Winterton demonstrated the regard in which he holds his constituents by asserting that whether or not they agree with him is "irrelevant"!

He also said that if he were forced to travel by standard class, that would put him "below local councillors and officers of local government. They all travel first class." Perish the thought! Now I don't know about you but our (Labour Controlled) Local Authority will only purchase standard class tickets for councillors and officers, Lib Dem Councillor Daisy Benson has said she doesn't travel first class either, so maybe it's just the Tory Councillors that do!?

Many left-of-centre bloggers will be rubbing their hands together with glee and chanting the old favourite "Same Old Tories" and to some degree this is true. Nicholas Winterton is one of those "Same Old Tories", he has, after all been a Member of Parliament for forty years, he is truly old-school - and that is not a dig at where he was educated! This latest embarrassing faux pas for the Conservative Party by one of their most long-serving elected members, is so mortifying for David Cameron that he has been forced to issue a statement via his spokesman, saying that this outburst is “the out-of-touch views of a soon-to-retire backbench MP,” whilst taking great pains to assure the public that “they do not in any way represent the views of David Cameron or that of the Conservative Party and should be treated as such.” So, Cameron wants us all to know that he is NOTHING like Nicholas Winterton. Got that? Ok. That's that then...

Isn't it? Well, I was intrigued, if Cameron is so desperate to show that he is completely different in his outlook and opinions to a senior backbench colleague, how close to the truth is it? Taking a very brief look at some of the key issues of recent times, which do Cameron and Winterton agree on?

So, repeat after me, "Winterton is not representative of the views of David Cameron". Oh, except he is... Maybe it isn't 'Same Old Tories', after all - instead it's just 'New Old Tories'.

Why Brown Feeling Blue Shouldn't Make Us See Red

2010-02-13T20:16:00.000Z

The opinion on whether Gordon Brown was right to give the interview with Piers Morgan is divided. I personally think it was a good idea, and here's why...

It seems that much of the media and consequently, the public think that politicians should be almost robotic and devoid of emotion. They cannot be human, make mistakes or admit to doing anything that the 'man-on-the-street' may consider to be normal behaviour. Lord help the MPs who make a joke, demonstrate anger, say they like a particular band or are seen to be wearing anything other than a suit!

The media insist on portraying ordinary behaviour by MPs as weird. Remember the Conservative Party Team-building trip that William Hague organised when he was leader? Now, what do you remember most about it? Was there a new policy decision that stands out? No, I'll bet that you, like me, remember Hague wearing a baseball cap in the group picture. See, this is ok for you and for me, but not for an MP, so the press took that and his jeans as the main story.

Female MPs come under even more scrutiny for their appearance. Why is there so much focus on the shoes that our female MPs wear? Should they dare to have a nice pair of stilettos on, that immediately becomes the focus of media attention – no matter what they have done in the Dept of Great Things, they are judged not on their performance, but on their shoes, (there are deeper issues of sexism and misogyny to consider here but I will leave that for now!).

The simple truth is that politicians are just people. They breathe in and out, they love, they work, they marry, have children, they play, they laugh and of course, they cry. When David Cameron and his wife Samantha lost their son Ivan, anyone who is a parent could begin to imagine the pain it must have caused them. I felt incredible sorrow for them and it is this compassion and care for others that is the measure of us as people, it should always supersede politics and partisan nonsense.

Why then, have I heard anyone suggesting that the tears shed by the Prime Minister in his interview with Piers Morgan were not genuine or that they were a contrived piece of electioneering? Just how cynical does one have to be to disregard the devastation that Gordon and Sarah experienced when they discovered their daughter was not going to survive. How heartless and devoid of compassion would someone have to be to not be touched by the obvious pain of the PM and his wife when remembering the last moments of Jennifer's life. It is ridiculous to think that a wound so deep and painful would be opened up publicly, in an attempt at some sort of sympathy Party Political Broadcast. Does anyone really believe that the public are considering this when deciding where to cast their vote?

This type of interview is something that would have been common in the days of Wogan, Aspel or Parkinson but the universally popular, evening chat show of this ilk has long since disappeared. It is now left to special event interviews such as those hosted by Piers Morgan to fill this void. If an actor, director or author were presenting their work to the public for judgment, there would be media attention and interviews. Similarly, while we are in a period of heightened awareness about politics, due to the impending General Election, the media interest in Gordon Brown and other politicians is greater. This is why anyone who is or was involved in politics is bringing their book out now!

The fact is that right from the start, there was a press agenda against Gordon Brown, but this is not unique to him – although it is certainly much more sustained. What is missing in much of the reporting of the lives of politicians is the human aspect. It is easy for reporters to perpetuate the myth of them being unfeeling, worker-bees, devoid of emotion and 'out-of-touch' with real life, when it is simply not true. They are people, just like you and me, merely doing a different job. The media is not now giving them a human face, they are just returning the one they took away.

Gordon Brown, is many things, Prime Minister and Member of Parliament are just two of them. First and foremost, he is a father and a husband. He is a man. This interview will hopefully allow people to see that.

Real Tories, Real Words

2010-02-01T14:59:00.000Z

The European Parliamentary Labour Party has put together a brilliant collection of quotes from their Conservative Counterparts in the European Parliament. I was given a copy this week and thought it would serve as an excellent reminder of the aims and opinions of real Tories, elected to represent us in Europe. The topics they cover range from tax to the NHS and climate change; in some cases they might sound far-fetched but I assure you, these are REAL TORIES, REAL WORDS.

ECONOMY

“It is quite understandable when they legally want to transfer their money to lower tax regimes.” Syed Kamall, MEP for London, European Parliament, 24 April 2009.

“The European social model is outdated, it is destructive, it prevents job creation and it acts against entrepreneurship.” Martin Callaghan, MEP for the North East, European Parliament, 11 March 2009.

CLIMATE CHANGE

“Climate hysteria is increasingly remote from reality.” Roger Helmer, MEP for the East Midlands, European Parliament, 21 May 2008.

and “Wind turbines are garden ornaments, not power stations.” Nottingham Evening Post, 16 June 2009.

EQUALITY

“'Homophobia' is merely a propaganda device designed to denigrate and stigmatise those holding conventional opinions, which have been held by most people through most of recorded history.” Roger Helmer, MEP for the East Midlands, on his blog, 19 July 2009.

HEALTH

“I know they [NHS charges] are controversial but I don't think people who are in a job would actually be against spending say, £10 to see their GP or being fined £10 if they don't show up to an outpatients.” Charles Tannock, MEP for London, Channel 4 News, 27 August 2009.

“There is little evidence that promoting the use of condoms actually prevents the transmission of AIDS.” Charles Tannock, MEP for London, European Parliament, 7 May 2009.

There is one MEP who deserves a little section all of his own and this is, of course, the inimitable Daniel Hannan, MEP for the South East, a small selection of his finest quotes are below:

“[Enoch Powell was] someone who understood the importance of national democracy, who understood why you needed to live in an independent country and what that meant, as well as being a free-marketeer and a small government Conservative.” Reason TV, Spring 2009.

“The health care system we have is kind of a relic...I wouldn't wish it on anyone.” Fox News, 12 August 2009.

“[Tax on Bankers' bonuses] is more about class war than raising money.” Fox News, 10 December 2009.

These snippets of what goes on in the mind of a Conservative MEP demonstrate the quite scary reality that lurks behind the mask of respectable, 'for-the-people-electability' that David Cameron is trying so hard to promote. He would have the electorate believe that the Conservatives have changed, that they are the party who will look out for the people, but all we have to do is watch out for the “Real Tories”. They are out there and unless we continue to erode their opinion poll lead away, they may soon be coming to a constituency near you.

'Brown's Britain - Bruised But Not Broken'

2010-01-26T18:16:00.000Z

Why do the British shy away from optimism? We seem much more comfortable in being miserable and bemoaning our lot in life. When Obama appeared with his message of hope, the people of the US embraced that and whipped out their shades to look to the bright future he spoke of. Why is it then, that in the UK, when the signs are that the recession is ending, all we hear are cynics and naysayers, talking our country down?

I understand the Tories' motives, I mean they are hardly going to say that Gordon Brown has done a great job – no matter what the rest of the world says about his achievements in saving the banks. Despite David Cameron trying to convince us that Gordon is not a strong and decisive leader, those are exactly the words that were used to describe the action he took over the banking crisis. He has previously been hailed as “Gordon Brown: European Superhero” by Le Monde and as the “saviour of the world financial system” by Paul Krugman in the New York Times. The fact remains that Gordon Brown was the best leader to guide the country through this world-wide recession and he remains the best person to nurture and encourage the growth that is at last beginning to appear.

The Conservative Government in the early 1990s also had a recession to deal with. Admittedly, the fall in GDP during that recession was lower than the cumulative effects of six consecutive quarters of negative-growth that we have seen in this recession, BUT the number of businesses failing and house repossessions were higher. The figures for unemployment in this recession have been consistently lower than in other recessions in recent history. Figures for the third quarter of 2009 – the sixth quarter of this recession – show the rate of unemployment to be at 7.8%. When this is compared with previous recessions, it can be seen that in the same quarter of the recession in the 1980s, the unemployment rate was up to 9.6% and in the sixth-quarter of the 1990s recession it stood at 9.5%.

Being in work is not just an economic necessity, it is of psychological importance too. Having a purpose, doing something constructive and useful adds value to people's lives. Obtaining a skill that will enable economic survival by providing employability brings hope to the young. Importantly, this Labour government understands that. The priority for the Conservative government that presided over the recessions in the 1980s and 1990s was not to help the blue-collar workers, which is why unemployment was allowed to rise as it did. Margaret Thatcher deliberately moved the UK away from the traditional manufacturing industries and pushed us into greater reliance on finance and banking. Now, that isn't me saying that we can blame Thatcher for this recession, it really was a world-wide phenomenon, but I am suggesting that some of the effects that the UK has felt from it, would have had less impact, had we nurtured and maintained our industrial heritage, rather than throwing it away.

Gordon Brown and the Labour party have policies that genuinely stem from wanting ALL people in the UK to have better lives. Assisting young people into training and work through schemes like the 'jobs guarantee' for all 18 – 25 year-olds and SureStart, which enables parents to obtain the support they need to help them back into the workforce are measures that not only give opportunity but also hope. This will end though, should David Cameron and his Conservatives obtain power in the forthcoming General Election.

Cameron is calling for cuts, cuts, cuts, a plan that further exposes his ignorance when it comes to fiscal policy – let us remind ourselves that Cameron was Special Advisor to Chancellor Norman Lamont at the time of Black Wednesday. With the first signs of growth being announced for the last quarter of 2009 and a fall in unemployment, it is a time for care and vigilance. Knee-jerk reactions are not what we need; Gordon Brown has warned that the action Cameron proposes would risk the recovery, halt growth and jeopardise jobs, we need to reduce the deficit steadily, he says. Brown is the voice of experience here, laying down plans that will reap rewards in the future, not trying to make a short-term point for political gain.

When I speak to young people in my area, they are not pessimistic about the future. They are looking forward to going to college, university or beginning work. They haven't yet developed negative, unnecessary cynicism and most of them understand which of the political parties will look out for them. They are angry when they hear David Cameron talk about “Broken Britain” – that is not the Britain they know. They are right, Britain isn't broken. Eighteen-years of Conservative rule gave her a battering, a bloody nose and almost broke her spirit but they didn't break her.

We must work to ensure the Labour policies that bring opportunity to those who need it most are able to continue. These are policies that allow young people to have ambition, policies that are there to benefit the majority. We have to fight the cynicism and negativity and look to the future with hope.

Under a Labour government, we can.

Another Reason Why We MUST Kick Cancer

2010-01-25T15:09:00.001Z

In November last year, I went to a 40th birthday party. It was no ordinary party, it was huge: fancy dress, fairground games, hundreds of people and a perfect evening. At the centre of it all was Lisa, it was her birthday and we all gathered to give her a wonderful evening and the happiest birthday ever. We did this knowing that Lisa may not have many more birthdays left. You see, Lisa had been diagnosed with breast cancer two months before I was, in December 2006.

To say Lisa was inspiring doesn't do her justice. She knew her breast cancer was the most aggressive form, she admitted that she was waiting for the onset of secondary cancer because there was little doubt that it would come. We sat together several times and talked, both having young children, we had the same worries, Lisa's boys are the same ages as my boys, and I felt exactly the same fears about leaving them and my daughter, as she felt at the prospect of leaving hers.

When the secondary diagnosis came, I talked to Lisa about how it was affecting her. I was amazed at the outward strength she showed. She said that she had a choice, she could either sit and wait to die or get on with living what life she had left. That is exactly what she did. Lisa and her husband took their boys to DisneyLand, on holidays and trips and made the last year of their lives with her as unforgettable as they could.

Lisa was not self-absorbed, she continued to work while she was able and helped to organise a campaign to try and stop the deportation of the Umoru Family, the online petition for which is here. She was a kind, loving and incredible woman, a genuine inspiration. Lisa passed away a few days ago. As a practicing Christian, she had her own faith and source of comfort. She knew her time was coming and had said her goodbyes.

I don't know how I would deal with the devastation of a terminal prognosis. I only hope that I could handle it with the dignity and grace that Lisa did. Throughout her last months, she organised her party and told us all that this was her wake. Seeing her, looking so happy that evening, I don't think any of us expected Lisa to leave us so soon. I certainly didn't. There will be no funeral or memorial service, Lisa wants us to remember her as she was that night.

Just last week, I changed my bio on Twitter to include "Cancer Survivor". I'm not 100% there yet, I have another two-years of check-ups and treatment before I get the "all clear" but I wanted to show that my attitude was to survive and beat this horrible disease. The immense sadness I feel at Lisa's passing is increased when I think of her boys and of the grief they will carry with them forever because she was one of the 1 in 9 women in the UK who will develop breast cancer in their lifetime. It is a battle we must continue and a fight we must win.

On her FaceBook page, Lisa has this as her favourite quote from a poem by M Louise Haskins (1875-1957):

"And I said to the man who stood at the gate of the year: "Give me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown?" And he replied: 'Go out into the darkness and put your hand into the hand of God. That shall be to you better than light and safer than a known way.'"

I am happier knowing that Lisa didn't fear the unknown and that she is now at peace. I hope her husband and boys find strength and comfort in the love she gave them and their memories. Though the world is less bright and our hearts are heavy, our lives shall always be better for having known Lisa. Rest in Peace.

Cameron's Pledge for SureStop

2010-01-23T08:41:00.000Z

Today, Matthew Woods, AKA @cleethorpesrock, someone with whom I have discussed and debated often, made this comment on Twitter:

It irked me immediately. On first examination, this seemed an ill-thought out comment from someone who hasn't really considered the impact that abolishing SureStart would have. SureStart provides more than just childcare. When I challenged this opinion, Matthew said that he believes that SureStart should only benefit the poor and not everyone, including those on £50k per year. I'm sympathetic to this but doubt that many £50k per year families are using the vast array of support services that SureStart offers to families in need. I must be fair to Matthew, who engages in the spirit of friendly, open-minded discussion and is a pleasure to cross-swords with; when I said this to him, he did say that he would investigate further and may reconsider. Still, it got me thinking - how many people think that SureStart is purely about childcare when in reality, it is so much more?

SureStart was launched by this Labour Government as part of the Every Child Matters strategy. It has been a key element in getting 600,000 children out of poverty, a worthy achievement. As Labour Matters says David Cameron's Tories are just not family friendly. Cutting back SureStart with the excuse that they are ensuring it is only targeted at the poorest in society, removes vital access to community health services, parenting and family support, outreach services, integrated early years education and access to training and employment opportunities for parents with children under five.

Local authorities are duty-bound by The Childcare Act 2006 to ensure that services for early-years are accessible and have maximum impact in benefitting families and children in their area. Consequently, in many places, SureStart has become an essential part of the community and has been praised by parents and professionals alike for being a catalyst in turning lives around, such as that of Karol Jacquin, a single-parent in Hounslow, who was directed towards her nearby SureStart centre by her Health Visitor in 2002. She credits this as being the turning point in her life.

To say that the Tories will cut £200Million from SureStart demonstrates the lack of regard David Cameron actually has for the family, for children and for the needs of real families. Robbing Peter to Pay Paul (Earl of Tory) and save him from that nasty Inheritance Tax bill is another example of how they may have fresh-faced posters and clever sound bites, but underneath it all, they are the same old Tories.

The fact is that the poor simply cannot trust Conservative policy and neither can families.

I Now Pronounce You Man and Wife. You May Kiss the Tax Man.

2010-01-21T11:17:00.000Z

The battle lines for the forthcoming General Election are being clearly drawn with Labour launching their policy plans regarding the family. This is one concept that the Conservatives have really gone to town on and tried to make their own. In the process they have continued to assert that, at least partly because of the breakdown of the “traditional family”, Britain has become a broken nation.

The reason that I am using quotation marks when I mention the Conservative idea of “family” is because the image they portray, is at odds with what family means to a huge number of people in the UK today. The Conservatives hark back to halcyon days, where every Summer was warm, there was always snow at Christmas and Mummy and Daddy would take little David on holidays to the seaside. They would paddle, build sand-castles and drink lashings and lashings of Ginger Beer. But like the Enid Blyton fantasy that describes, the truth was often very different.

The Second World War changed family life forever. The lengthy periods of separation created marriages that were scarred by conflict, adultery and people who barely knew one another. The done thing back then, was to stick it out and in order to encourage this, divorce was not an easy option, only being permitted in the event of fault, cruelty or adultery. This lead to so many people being unhappy and alone whilst seemingly within the confines of a loving family unit. That is what the Conservatives are trying to encourage again. Stay together for the sake of the children, you loved one another once, grin and bear it or stay married for the sake of a few extra pounds in tax allowance.

The Green Paper unveiled by Ed Balls MP, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, has a much more balanced approach. Entitled ‘Support for All – the Families and Relationships Green Paper’ has a 'whole family' approach. Support for All (not just the marrieds) is an important step in recognising that a family is about more than a certificate that shows you had a nice party and spent a lot of money on frocks and fru fru! (Believe me, I speak from experience – twice!)

This approach sets out clearly the Government's commitment to supporting all families, no matter what their constitution. While announcing this important initiative, Mr Balls recognised the diverse nature of the family today, “Families come in all shapes and sizes these days and the evidence is clear that stable and loving relationships between parents and with their children are vital for their progress and well-being.”

The measures announced will help couples to prevent and resolve marriage and relationship breakdown whilst also offering support and recognition to Dads who need it and Grandparents – with so many parents having no choice but to work, the role of Grandparents has become increasingly important. In addition to this, working parents will also benefit from improvements to flexible working.

Providing assistance and support for those couples who genuinely want to stay together but have problems is a key part of this initiative. It doesn't matter if the couple is married, co-habiting or in a civil-partnership, enabling the people who choose to stay together to obtain the help they need to do so, on an emotional and practical level is far better for everyone involved. Yet, the Tories continue to value the idea of marriage above everything else, their policy says that a couple with three children who are married, deserve more than a couple with three children who are not.

Surprisingly, with this being such an important part of the Conservative manifesto, David Willetts, (Shadow Cabinet Member with responsibility for coming up with the policy) still doesn't know what form any Married Couples tax break will take.

So, to put it in simple terms, the Conservatives will do something, but they, and consequently we, do not know what it is yet. What we do know is that the Conservative party has a definite view of what a family SHOULD look like and it involves Mum, Dad and 2.4 children. It is built around the central concept of marriage.

The Labour policy on families is centered on children. This tells me much of what I need to know and an awful lot about the people creating the policy.

Cameron: Poverty matters less than a hug

2010-01-12T08:45:00.001Z

So Cameron has convinced himself and is now trying to kid the rest of us, that one of the basic tenets of socialism is irrelevant when it comes to child poverty. He has deliberately interpreted research by isolating points that can be used as a cop-out to the redistribution of wealth and can shore up the Tory policy of rewarding the institution of marriage.

Cameron was speaking at a launch of a study into the issue of character by the think-tank Demos. He admitted that material wealth does impact on life chances but dismissed the impact of this in comparison with parenting. Apparently, poverty matters less than hugs when it comes to a child getting on in life: "What matters most to a child's life chances is not the wealth of their upbringing but the warmth of their parenting."

Of course though, Cameron also believes that less well-off parents are less likely to be good parents, so that is the reason for fewer of them achieving in life! He says, "the research shows that while the style of responsible parenting I've spoken about today is more likely to occur in wealthier households, children in poor households who are raised with that style of parenting do just as well."

Thanks for enlightening us Mr Cameron, all we need to do is encourage those parents who live in poverty, to give a hug a day! That is more effective than any privilege or favour bestowed by wealth.

Does he really believe this? Do the Tories actually think that their tax incentives for married couples will mean that all marriages will be happy and all families will be loving. As Germaine Greer said, at an appearance in Sheffield last month, "Do you really want a woman to continue lying in the same bed as a man she hates, just to preserve the family, Mr Cameron?" Would this really create a stable, loving environment for children? Of course not! This Labour government has done more to end child poverty than any other goverment in history. The effects of poverty run long, deep and seep through generations.

All Mr Cameron is achieving with his words today is to reinforce the fact that the Tories haven't changed. Rich = good, poor = bad and he is simply attempting to absolve himself and any potential Conservative government of any responsibility to adequately address the real issues that affect real families.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

A Klass in Krime

2010-01-11T12:43:00.000Z

I did it! Today, I took the biggest sharpest knife I could find and brandished it, “offensive weapon” style. I waved it around dangerously and admit that I must have looked quite threatening.

I wasn't worried about doing this because I was in my own kitchen. Apparently however, I should have been, carrying an offensive weapon is also illegal in one's own home! Or so Myleene Klass was informed by police officers who attended her home after two youths had broken into her garden and approached the kitchen window, where she stood, alone.

Now, before I get all political about crime and punishment, I think we should consider the impact this advice has on other things we may wish to do in the "privacy" of our own homes. My list of recent infractions demonstrates that there is habitual law-breaking going on right here! What will this do to crime figures? My family's recent crime-spree includes the following:

I recently drove down the drive whilst not wearing my seatbelt! That's at least a £60 fine...

In contravention of health and safety, I recently climbed on a chair to reach something from the top of the refrigerator. The HSE may wish to inspect my kitchen for other ways that I may have disregarded their regulations.

Unfortunately, my 5-year old LOVES to write all over the wall of our house. His 'graffiti' is a damning sign of how respect for property has all but disappeared.

Littering is a constant problem. Next time one of my children drop a Frube wrapper or other "litter" on the floor or leave a tissue on the arm of the sofa, I shall take great pleasure in ensuring they are given a £50 on-the-spot fine for their misdemeanor.

I'm not proud to admit it, but late on 31st December 2009, there were several adults who were drunk and disorderly. Public nuisance laws may also have been infringed with the noise of singing and general raucousness.

I must be honest, most rooms in my house would become crime scenes, in fact my bathroom is a hotbed of offences that would clearly be in contravention of public decency laws! So what on Earth is this all about?

Myleene Klass was home alone, her partner was away for the night and her young daughter was in bed. She saw intruders in her garden, grabbed a knife and banged the window to let them know they had been seen and to encourage them to leave. She did not chase them down the street yelling "Come 'ere, I'll cut ya!" or attempt to or exact revenge, there was no suggestion of vigilantism or a desire to break the law.

This is nothing like the tragic case of the Hussain brothers who chased an intruder and beat him so badly in a revenge attack, that they broke a cricket bat on his head and left him with permanent brain damage. Before you get all mad at me for being soft on crime, let me put that one straight. I am not soft on crime at all, I believe that crime should be a priority policy and that punishment for a crime should be appropriate for the offence committed. I am in favour of strong and decisive policies on crime and justice. BUT they must be fair.

The Conservatives have already said that they will strengthen the rights of home-owners to defend their property, Chris Grayling said recently, that only householders who use grossly disproportionate force should be prosecuted. This is the sort of language that will appeal to voters who are concerned about crime, while it stops short of appealing to those who think it would be OK to kill someone desperate enough to try and steal a VCR to pay for a fix. The Justice Secretary, Jack Straw has already said that anyone who instinctively defends their family and property should not be punished but we need more than that.

Crime under Labour is down. Fact. Yet perception of crime – thanks to the media – is that we are more likely to be a victim now than ever. This is simply not true, the actual chance of becoming a victim of crime is at an historically low level. Under this Labour government, crime has fallen, overall, by 39%. This equates to more than 6 million fewer crimes. Specifically, there has shown to be a fall in domestic burglary of 55%, a fall in vehicle-related crime of 57%, while violent crime is down by 39%.

This has been achieved by increasing police numbers by over 14,000 and creating almost 16,000 Police Community Support Officer posts. Policing has become more community-focused with Neighbourhood Policing Teams working with local people to ensure that priority issues are tackled effectively. Crime is not the issue it once was but we must be visibly prioritising both tackling and preventing crime.

Common sense must prevail. I would like to think that the police officer who warned Ms Klass about her offensive weapon "misdemeanor", will be taken into a small room by his or her Inspector and get a severe rollicking, maybe with some stern gesticulation to drive the point home.

Ah well, you can now add incitement to assault to my list of home-committed offences.

It's time for the end of playground politics

2010-01-06T13:58:00.001Z

What exactly do Hewitt & Hoon think they will achieve by calling for their colleagues to support a secret ballot on Gordon Brown's leadership?

We are in a General Election year. Let's face facts, the Tories are united in their desire to win power at any cost and what are we doing? Scrapping in the playground.

Cameron's policies may have been cooked up on the playing fields of Eton but Labour's demise is being engineered on the playground of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Already this week, there has been rumblings from Charles Clarke, still sitting on the swings with a bloodied nose and now, Hewitt & Hoon have come along and want everyone to join in their game of tag.

What exactly do they want? Do a few MPs really think they will achieve more on the opposition benches? That is surely where we are headed if, as a party, we adopt this as our main priority.

Are Hewitt & Hoon so naïve that they truly believe a secret ballot will help? Do they envisage all detractors rallying behind Brown and giving him the same vote of confidence a Football Club Chairman affords his manager, while he is secretly planning to appoint the chap from down the road to try to avoid relegation? We know how that usually pans out, except for us, the season is at least four years long.

It's time to leave the playground and enter the battle field. What must happen now, is a rallying cry. Not a secret ballot but a loud, war cry from MPs as they stand true and firm behind their Leader and prepare to fight.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Tories + NHS ≠ Trust

2010-01-05T08:15:00.001Z

With the Conservatives openly attempting to woo the Lib Dems, now that we are in an election year, I was surprised to see the latest Tory propaganda poster.

Cameron is trying to convince us that the Tories, and therefore he, can be trusted with our NHS. Well, until I have heard a definitive rejection of the ideas of his chum Dan Hannan and those of Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, who says that the Tories will abolish all centrally-imposed clinical targets, I will remain absolutely unconvinced.

Tories + NHS ≠ Trust.

Also, we all know how the Lib Dems feel about the airbrushing of photographs and the unrealistic portrayal of the subject this creates. Dear me, Mr Cameron, with the amount of touching-up you've received in that photograph, you will certainly not endear yourself to the Lib Dems!

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

China: A History of Human Wrongs

2009-12-29T11:40:00.003Z

The long-standing issue of China's appalling record in human rights is finally getting the attention it has required for many years. Why? - Because for the first time in over fifty years, China has executed an EU national.

It is appalling that Akmal Shaikh, a 53-year-old, father-of-three, from London, has been executed after being in custody for the past two-years. This is despite pleading his innocence and reportedly suffering from a mental illness. Mr Shaikh's grieving family tried their best to appeal to the Chinese authorities but no assessment was ever carried out on his mental state. He had, apparently travelled to China after being promised by drug dealers that they would make him a pop star in the country. They then duped him into carrying a suitcase that did not belong to him and that contained just over 4 Kg of heroin.

The Chinese authorities say that this amount of heroin is "enough to cause 26,800 deaths". This was a case of serious drug trafficking, according to the Chinese embassy. So, is it fair to assume that, like several other countries, China merely has a strict judicial policy towards drug smuggling and that execution is a last resort? Was Mr Shaikh's case being used by China to send out a message to other drug-smugglers, demonstrating that they will be dealt with severely if caught? The simple answer is no. One only has to look at the statistics to see China's disgusting and shameful record in human rights. Amnesty International estimates that in 2008, China was responsible for 72% of all executions across the globe. Over 1700 people killed, usually by gunshot, in the name of justice. Those executed were not all murderers and drug dealers either; there were at least sixty of those people that were convicted of crimes such as tax-evasion and embezzlement.

Amnesty has been appealing for action on China's record of disregarding human rights for many years. They highlight cases such as that of Zhao Lianhai, whose "crime" was to campaign for justice after his son was one of many made ill by contaminated milk powder in 2008. Zhao was arrested at his home on 13th November this year. He is being detained at the Daxing District Police Station in Beijing, where he is in grave danger of torture and abuse.

Another prominent charity, Human Rights Watch, reports the case of Liu Xiaobo, who as a leading intellectual, had already been imprisoned for almost two-years after the "Tiananmen crackdown". He is currently under arrest and awaiting trial for “incitement to subvert state power”. In simple terms, he is judged to have been critical of the government and the party in articles he authored in previous years and by contributing to “Charter ‘08,” a political manifesto that calls for China to adhere to its responsibilities and commitment to human rights.

Liu has been detained without charge for over a year and faces 15-years in prison. His trial, which was due to begin on December 23rd, will be held in closed court, his wife and other supporters have been warned to stay away and have been placed under police surveillance.

Now that China has openly abused the human rights of a 'Westerner' the issue is finally getting the attention it has deserved for a long time. China needs the support of the international community if it is to develop as a nation, it relies on trade with the west and is looking to place itself at the forefront of world affairs. It is essential that the rest of the world acts and unites in disgust at this latest flagrant disregard for justice and humanity. World leaders must assert that only nations who demonstrate respect and commitment to human rights will be permitted a seat at the table.

The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown released a statement saying: "I condemn the execution of Akmal Shaikh in the strongest terms, and am appalled and disappointed that our persistent requests for clemency have not been granted.

"I am particularly concerned that no mental health assessment was undertaken.

"At this time our thoughts are with Mr Shaikh's family and friends and I send them our sincere condolences."

Foreign Secretary David Miliband added to condemnation of the execution, reiterating that the UK is opposed to the use of the death penalty in all circumstances. He also expressed regret that in the case of Mr Shaikh, "mental health issues, and inadequate professional interpretation" had been ignored.

A spokesperson from the Chinese Embassy stated that "The legal structures of China and UK may be different, but it should not stand in the way of enhancing our bilateral relations on the basis of mutual respect."

No expression of regret, just the inflated ego of a regime that has gotten away with crimes against humanity for so long that it now thinks it can continue to do so openly. Asking for respect after an action such as this is an insult to international diplomacy and the international community.

My condolences to the family of Akmal Shaikh, may he rest in peace.

TChee's Christmas Twessage

2009-12-25T15:00:00.001Z

I was asked to post this on my blog for people who did not manage to see it at the time. At 3 PM on Christmas Day, I addressed the nation via Twitter - a Christmas "Twessage" (ahem) as it were. The hashtag was #tcheesXmasTwessage and it was spread over fifteen tweets. I have compacted it here for ease of reading.

Good afternoon everyone. Christmas is a time when, regardless of faith, we can celebrate together. Often, that is purely a celebration of being with people who are important to us. For some, that may be family for others, it is friends who provide the stability & comfort that is traditionally associated with family.

The modern world has changed relationships in every aspect of our lives, from those we are born into to those we choose. Today, I am sharing Christmas, not only with my closest loved ones, but also with people on social networks such as Twitter, who I have come to regard as friends & of whom I am very fond. I know I am very fortunate. There is a saying I often use: “You are never alone with Twitter” & it is true. There are however, many people who are not so lucky.

There are people who are alone, for whatever reason, who need help and support all year round, not just at Christmas. There are soldiers, in foreign countries, people in developing nations and even in our own country, who for a variety of reasons do not have the care and support they need.

The measure of any society is how they treat the least among them. The poor, the unfortunate and the misunderstood. As we enter the year 2010, when there will be division, argument and elections, it is important for us all to remember that the basic principles of human kindness, the things that unite us, not only as a nation, but as a species are far more important than the things that divide us.

With that, my husband @CllrTim & I, would like to wish you all, a very merry Christmas & a happy & healthy 2010.

Bercow Vs Dorries Vs Bercow

2009-12-03T20:50:00.000Z

My husband, (Cllr Tim Cheetham, @CllrTim) and I have many differences, some of them, such as religion, are quite fundamental. We often disagree on policy and other political matters - we discuss and debate frequently, sometimes we even argue about such things. There is however, one thing we would never do and that is to tell one another what we can think, do or say. We have a marriage that is based on partnership, equality, love and mutual respect.

For a wife to be expected to subdue her beliefs, to hold her tongue and to be no more than an accessory to her husband's position is insulting, submissive, sexist and harks back to the 1950's, when many women held exactly this position. It is therefore astonishing that the Conservative MP Nadine Dorries would like Speaker's wife, Sally Bercow to play exactly that role. Ms Dorries has forged ahead in her career, enjoying benefits obtained on her behalf by the women's movement. The fight for equality and recognition that women had to (and in some cases still do) endure is exactly why she is able to hold the position she now enjoys.

In June Nadine Dorries blogged about campaigning against John Bercow's election as Speaker of the House of Commons and how she would do her best to ensure it was the shortest served appointment in history. One of the main reasons she cited for her opposition was Mrs Bercow, she said:

"...the Speaker’s wife, should he have one, plays a very important role. We have all seen how often Speaker Martin’s wife has been named in the press over the years. John Bercow’s wife is reported to be a socialist. Does this matter? I think it does, a great deal."

In The Times today, there is an interview with Sally Bercow, in which she admits to a "work hard, party hard" lifestyle during the 1990's. She says that she hopes to run for Parliament as a Labour candidate and the interview was her way of getting anything that might come back to haunt her out of the way now, on her terms. Essentially, she was clearing out her closet. At the end of the piece is a comment from Nadine Dorries:

“How can we ask the people to trust us, when the man who holds us to account has such poor judgment that he allowed his wife to give such an appalling, self-obsessed interview?”

Excuse me? ALLOWED his wife???

I for one do not believe that the Bercows have the type of relationship based on a Master and his submissive wife. That type of set-up would not have endured the years that they have been together, with both of them holding political ambition. I imagine, like Tim and I, the things they have in common are much stronger than their differences and again, like us, the mutual respect they have for one another is something that makes the Bercows' marriage stronger.

Nadine Dorries has reaped the rewards of the women who fought for her right to work and achieve. For her to now turn around and use her position to imply that a woman's place is at her husband's side, keeping her opinions to herself and merely being his supporting and adoring spouse is a slap in the face to every woman who ever had to stand up and say "Enough!"

PS. I did not clear these opinions with my husband before I wrote this piece, nor would he ever ask me to.

Class politics are dead. Welcome to the politics of wealth.

2009-12-01T00:05:00.000Z

Is anyone really taken in by David Cameron's "man-of-the-people" act? For as surely as a fat man in a red suit will be hanging around every shopping mall over the next few weeks, it is an act. The first time I laughed out loud at Dave's attempt to sound more 'street' was when he tried to reassure us that his wife was quite common because she had attended "day school". AND, did you know she was (in her own words) brought up "outside Scunthorpe"? Considering this was on the 3,000-acre Thealby Hall Estate, that does indeed lie "outside Scunthorpe", it is like Prince Charles saying that he was raised near the East End and is actually a Cockney.

Recently, Mr Cameron unveiled his official portrait. Of course, we all have one of those don't we? I'm not talking about a nice snap taken by the visiting school photographer or a wedding pic, this is a painting by Jonathan Yeo, son of former Tory minister Tim Yeo. Yes, Cameron - just like you and me! My portrait hangs above the mantle in the drawing room don't you know!

Attempts to portray the Tories as being like us ordinary folk has taken a bit of a hammering recently. Cameron aside, there's Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative PPC for Richmond Park, who has admitted to having non-domicile status. Zac inherited his fortune from his father, Sir James Goldsmith in 1997 and since then, he has enjoyed the trappings of a super-rich lifestyle, travelling the globe between his family's homes in Devon, London, Marbella, France and Mexico. (Not that I'm attempting to cast aspersions on his green credentials or anything, but I am slightly curious as to Zac's carbon footprint, him being the Conservative Leader's Green Advisor and all... but I digress.)

Then of course there is Annunziata Rees-Mogg, a woman whose name alone sounds so posh that Dave asked her to reinvent herself as 'Nancy Mogg'! She refused and the claim has since been denied and passed off as a joke by Conservative HQ. I don't buy it. Cameron tries so hard to appear less privileged and tries desperately to project this onto his party members, such as famously instructing them to hide the champers if there was a camera around at the Conservative Party Conference.

More than 50% of David Cameron's shadow cabinet are millionaires. It is something he would like us to ignore, he's somewhat embarrassed about it and would like it if we were to pretend that it doesn't matter if one has come from a privileged background. It is where you are going to that is important, he tells us. That would be fine, if he and his chums were creating policies that were beneficial to all of society, not just to the rich. The next government will have to make tough decisions, Cameron reminds us, there will have to be cuts; there will have to be sacrifices and lean times. Obviously not for his mates though. When they inherit Daddy's wealth, their mate Dave will have ensured they pay as little tax as possible on it by raising the IHT threshold to £2Million for a married couple.

The truth is, David Cameron and his Tory chums are nothing like you and me. They are super-wealthy, super-privileged and super-out-of-touch with the daily trials of the average working voter. This is not a class issue, it is an issue of wealth and the Tories looking after their own. Class politics may indeed be dead but the politics of wealth will always be an influencing factor in policy making in the modern Conservative party.

Tories put Balance-Sheets before Bed-Sheets

2009-11-27T14:28:00.000Z

Philip Hammond, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has outlined what the Tories will do to improve efficiency in the public sector. He has reiterated the pledges made by George Osborne at the Conservative Party Conference, which included a one-year pay freeze in the public sector from 2011, advancing the date for the state pension age increase and capping the biggest public sector pensions and then, he went further, suggesting that the Conservative Party would save £60bn per year through nothing more than increased efficiency.

Mr Hammond announced that under Conservative proposals, public service providers will be paid only on what they deliver, schools will only be paid for each pupil they attract, hospitals only for treatments they provide and the Conservative's welfare to work programme will only pay for each person they get into a "sustainable job".

A more short-sighted plan it is hard to imagine.

My main concern is the effect this will have on the National Health Service. Leaving aside the effects on other Government services, which would require a much longer blog than I plan to write, let us consider the Conservative's latest plan to weaken and devalue the NHS. For example:

Hospitals will have no incentive to invest in the prevention of illness.

Why stop smoking? The hospital won't get paid for that - but if you turn up, barely able to breathe, with a bad case of lung cancer: KERCHING!!! The Smoking Cessation Services across the country, that have helped people to quit smoking and eased the burden on the NHS will have to close.

The weight-wise programme will have to go!

Currently this service helps obese people to adapt their eating habits and stave off the potential heart disease, disability and cancers associated with their condition. All the obese people who urgently need this help can instead go and buy some chips! That way, the hospitals will get a nice windfall, when these non-patients start to keel over with a cardiac arrest or when they eventually need mobility care.

An End to Palliative Care

As part of cancer care, many hospitals fund additional, non-medical care, such as aromatherapy, reflexology and shiatsu massage, these therapies help cancer patients to cope better with the demands of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The consultation with a local wig provider, who is paid to come into the hospital and advise on wigs and scarves: that's not a 'treatment' either, so no doubt, that will end too.

The NHS is not a widget factory, banging out an end product with a set process. The NHS does so much more than just "treat patients". It is a National Health Service, not a National Treatment Service. The 'outcome' of a hospital is not always providing a cure, often it is preventing the need for treatment in the first place. What does 'payment for treatment' mean for nursing homes and hospices? What are their "results"?

Economics cannot always be the driving force in public services. Care for the elderly for example, is never economical, to try to make it so will lead to a huge failure in quality of care and availability of provision.

All Philip Hammond has achieved today is to further demonstrate why the Conservative Party cannot be trusted with health-care and our NHS.

Why Thatcher Should Issue an Apology

2009-11-23T20:52:00.003Z

The cute little blue bear that is @ToryBear issued a decree that @CllrTim and @Bevaniteellie should issue an apology for a joke that was tweeted by the former and retweeted by the latter. At worst it was a joke in bad taste but no more so than many of the jokes that circulate on Twitter, from all sides of the political sphere.

In fact, it's the sort of joke that one might hear at a Jimmy Carr gig, one that pushes the boundaries slightly but only causes offence if it is being actively sought.

The real need, when it comes to apologies, is the one that the working classes are still waiting for from Thatcher herself, one they will surely never receive. The destruction of the coal-mining communities, caused by the arrogance and determination of one woman to crush and make an example of one man who dared to stand up to her and fight.

In effect, Thatcher declared civil war on the communities that relied on the coal industry. She sent the army and the police in force to stop the miners from defending their livelihood and she caused the complete destruction of society in these working class heartlands.

She did this with no care for the consequences, no concern for the families ripped apart, no thought for the generations of hopelessness and poverty and not one scrap of remorse for the blood on her hands as a result of her actions.

In communities like mine, the effects of Thatcher's legacy are still felt every single day. Every one of us in the UK is still paying for the regeneration schemes and rebuilding work that are needed to put right her vengeful acts. Millions of pounds - ironically ridiculously more than it would have cost to maintain the coal industry - have been spent in the pursuit of returning towns like Barnsley to the thriving communities they once were.

So, a joke in poor taste compared with the destruction of lives. The "Iron Lady" and her 'iron-will' cost more than she could ever imagine, but I doubt she has ever given it or us, a second thought.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Rely on the NHS

2009-11-21T16:25:00.000Z

A while ago, I responded to an email from the Labour Party, asking for members to share their cancer stories. As you may know, I owe my life to the NHS - without the speedy intervention, surgery and chemotherapy I received, I would not be here now, my children would be without their mother and my husband would be without his wife.

The two-week cancer care guarantee is vital to ensure that as many people as possible can fight cancer and beat it. Early detection gives the best chance of this and is an essential part of the process. Any cancer patient will tell you, the worst part is waiting, not knowing whether you have a life-threatening disease and worrying about the future for your children and family. The two-week cancer care guarantee means that this time is cut to a minimum.

Tory front-bencher Philip Hammond has claimed that the Conservatives also support the guarantee but this is in complete contradiction to the Conservative pledge to abolish all government-imposed clinical targets. Making a pie-crust promise is not what is needed in the fight against cancer, patient care demands targets for the detection and treatment of this cruel and indiscriminate disease. Labour want to make it a legal right for a patient to be given a specialist referral within two-weeks. Yet again this demonstrates which party can be trusted with our National Health Service - a service that Labour had to rebuild after 18-years of Tory abuse, of ward closures, neglected hospital facilities and a crumbling infrastructure. Time and time again, the likes of Dan Hannan show the Conservative Party's true colours, the reality behind Cameron's 'party-of-the-people' facade. The simple truth is that the Tories cannot be trusted to protect the NHS and ensure it continues to provide healthcare to all, irrespective of wealth or ability to pay: free at the point of need.

The #WeLoveTheNHS trend was a fantastic example of just how much support there is for our National Health Service and an indication of the power of Twitter. This campaign, Rely on the NHS, #relyontheNHS, is an important demonstration of how much we value the care that the NHS provides.

I am here for my family because I could Rely on the NHS. You can too, let's make sure it stays that way. I urge you to please support this campaign and let as many people as possible know about the Two-Week Cancer Care Guarantee. Join us, Fight for the NHS and please sign the petition here: www.relyonthenhs.co.uk

(My own story is briefly detailed in the original blog I wrote, here, if you are interested)

PMQs Through the eyes of a ten-year-old

2009-11-05T12:56:00.004Z

Yesterday I watched PMQs. This is not an unusual event but due to an outbreak of swine flu, (which thankfully, we are coming to the end of) I had company. Joining me was my ten-year-old son Harry.

If I am at home for live PMQs, I follow the #pmqs hash tag on Twitter, so today I thought it would be a good idea to invent a new hash-tag for PMQs: #harrypmqs. I asked Harry if he would watch with me and tell me what he thought so that I could tweet it. He agreed and I had the most enjoyable thirty-minutes of parliament that I think I've ever had.

The tweets are below, a verbatim reproduction of a ten-year-old's first impression of PMQs. Anything in [these] was something relevant that I said to Harry, just to give you the context in which he is speaking.

He needs to stick his hair down (Jamie Reed) #harrypmqs #pmqs

I was just told to be quiet, so Harry can hear what's going on! #harrypmqs #pmqs

How does the Speaker choose who speaks? If he's got a list, what if someone else comes up with a good idea? #harrypmqs #pmqs

Why do they always shout? #harrypmqs #pmqs

It's a bit rude isn't it? #harrypmqs #pmqs

What's point in all those ppl being there if only a few get to talk? [To hear answers] Why so they can go & tell their wives? #harrypmqs #pmqs

They might be being careful what they say because the cameras are there. #harrypmqs #pmqs

I bet they all go home & tell their kids not to be rude! #harrypmqs #pmqs

Say please!!! #harrypmqs #pmqs

[You're sounding like the manners Police!] Well, they're being rude, shouting! [This is quite good] *That* is good? #harrypmqs #pmqs

Why do they move onto another subject before the question has been answered? #harrypmqs #pmqs

Does he just answer the questions or does he actually do what they ask as well? #harrypmqs #pmqs

Is that where tax goes - to paying them? #harrypmqs #pmqs

So PMQs created lots of questions for Harry. I didn't expect him to understand the issues being discussed, but wanted his perception of the process. I think he did well for a first time effort!

There were a couple of things that really stood out for me. Firstly, he suggested that the people in attendance are listening to the answers so that they could go home "and tell their wives". A clear sign that he noticed the chamber was mainly comprised of men. Secondly, Harry mostly commented about the lack of respect for whoever is speaking, the word 'rude' featured three times, with many of his comments being about the etiquette of listening to the speaker and the shouting that was going on.

I also thought that the suggestion of adult hypocrisy, in saying that he would bet they all told their children not to be rude was insightful and his observation that the politicians may be watching what they say because of the cameras being there indicated a healthy political scepticism beginning to form already.

At ten, Harry was not partisan at all, he listened to everyone who spoke and judged them not by which party they stood for but by how they conducted themselves. While he didn't fully understand the issues being discussed, he was frustrated with the lack of actual answers to many of the questions and the way that the subject was changed, rather than a straight answer being given. Harry's final question, about whether it is tax that pays the MPs demonstrates that he noticed the media reporting of expenses and is aware that Parliament is paid for by the people.

When PMQs had finished, we had a chat about it and Harry said that if they all shouted out in class when someone was speaking, they would get into trouble. He asked how anyone could listen properly with all that noise. There were questions about what the MPs do next and he then asked if he could watch again next week. So it didn't completely put him off politics!

I was proud of him for taking part and engaging so well, perhaps, as it was suggested to me, schools could engage with the political process by allowing children to see PMQs and it might just be the small step onto the path to political engagement that future voters need.

Christmas and Climate - How Boris Can Be an Even Bigger Hero Next Year

2009-11-03T18:35:00.001Z

I'm going to come out right now and say that I LOVE Christmas. Mainly because I see the joy that it brings to our three children. Everything from the annual trip to the farm to buy our tree and see the reindeer, the trip on Kirklees Light Railway's Santa Special, decorating the living room and wrapping presents. It's fun and exciting for the little ones.

The preparation on Christmas Eve, making a Lego house and painting pictures to show Santa, carrots for all the reindeer and a glass of Southern Comfort to accompany the big man's mince pie, all of this makes Christmas a lovely, family experience. Of course, also part of the fun, is the Christmas lights that adorn every High Street and many houses. We often have to detour on our way home so that the children can see the 'craziest' (most decorated) houses.

We often hear complaints about how early the Christmas stock begins to appear on the shelves in our supermarkets and shops and the playing of Christmas songs by radio stations is definitely a no-no before December. Why then are the vast Christmas lights of Oxford Street being switched on so early, on 3rd November?

At a time when Climate Change is high on the agenda; with the UK signed up to Kyoto and legislation being affected to ensure targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases are achieved, surely it makes sense to consider the impact of Christmas lights. I am not suggesting they be banned or any other ridiculous knee-jerk reaction, but what I am suggesting is that the 'big switch on' is delayed until the beginning of December. This will save a huge amount of electricity and assist with climate change action.

Boris Johnson made the headlines for saving high profile climate change activist and founder of the 10:10 campaign, Franny Armstrong from a gang of iron-bar wielding girls, who attacked her as she walked along the street in Camden. Perhaps he could help climate change again - more directly - next year and have a more responsible approach to Christmas lighting in the capital.

Search & Seize Powers for Councils, DWP & Royal Mail (Yes, Really!)

2009-10-28T21:41:00.002Z

Under the Proceeds of Crime Act, from next week, local councils, DWP, Trading Standards and HM Customs will have the right to seize the assets of petty criminals and minor offenders. This extension of powers is being put through parliament by Home Secretary Alan Johnson, as a Statutory Instrument, meaning MPs will have no opportunity to debate or question the wisdom of such a move. For such an important extension to the powers of these organisations to be swept through with no scrutiny is outrageous.

The original act was designed to seize the profits of crime from major criminals and organised crime syndicates. The purpose was to ensure that those involved in nefarious activities were unable to enjoy a luxury lifestyle off the back of their illegal earnings and ill-gotten gains. Last week, Prosecutors obtained a confiscation order for £750,000 against Sean Lynch a career criminal and drug dealer who was jailed for 18 years in 2008. Lynch has assets including a property in Surrey, two homes in Spain and a collection of luxury cars, including a Ferrari, Aston Martin and Rolls Royce. The Proceeds of Crime Act was created to specifically target criminals such as Lynch and to send the message that crime does not pay.

Currently, orders are granted by the courts and acted upon by Police. Under the new system, workers and Investigators will be able to seize assets worth more than £1000 without having to wait for a court order to determine their origin, thus allowing the presumption that all assets have been obtained via crime. They will also be able to carry out property searches under the authority of a search warrant and completely independently of any police involvement.

The Police Federation have indicated their concern over the move with Chairman Paul McKeever in The Times saying:

"There is a behind the scenes creep of power occurring here and I think the public will be very surprised. They would want such intrusive powers to be kept in the hands of warranted officers and other law enforcement bodies which are vetted to a very high standard rather than given to local councils."

Despite the reassurances of a strict code of conduct, there is a fear among legal experts that the powers will be abused by local authorities, who will misuse the Act to search and enter homes. Comparisons have been drawn with counter terrorist legislation being used as enforcement in non-terrorist activity and particularly with the use of surveillance.

As we are fast approaching a general election, the wisdom of pushing through legislation such as this must be questioned. Enhancing the power of the state is always unpopular, civil liberties are still high on the agenda after SOCPA and ID cards and there has been a Government climb-down in both of those cases.

The list of organisations that will be given these enhanced powers also includes Royal Mail, who could seize the assets of an employee involved in mail fraud and the Gangmasters Licensing Authority who might seize assets from someone profiting from the underpayment of wages. There is surely far too much scope here and powers such as these are better kept within the confines of law enforcement. One only has to consider the Child Support Agency and the effect of incorrect orders being made against innocent men. In some cases, mistakes took years to sort out, with deductions being made from salaries despite the CSA being advised of their error. The powers of the Proceeds of Crime Act are being handed out too widely and allows an open goal for those who already accuse this Government of operating an oppressive state and eroding civil liberties.

But, maybe there is one area where the devolution of such powers would be a good idea... If Sir Thomas Legg was included in that list, I'm sure there would be fewer objections. Outside the cosy walls of the Palace of Westminster anyway!

Delivering the Goods

2009-10-22T18:20:00.004+01:00

Today I received several emails from companies I have previously ordered from. This is a typical example:

Dear Mrs Cheetham

Postal Strikes? Yes? No? Who knows?

First thing - don't worry. We don't use Royal Mail to deliver wine so there will be no problem DELIVERING WINE to you.

Second: you can now browse all our brochures online at xxxxxxxx

Email is great, isn't it? We're not dependent on the post. And I want to ensure we stay in contact with each other despite the strikes, however long that might last.

I admit, obviously we don't want to lose your next order. But I'm also thinking that it really would be a shame for you to miss out on a wealth of fantastic wines. Better than ever!

I have replied to each of them as follows:

I was saddened to receive your email, stating that you do not use Royal Mail.

I am very much in support of the striking mail-workers and would not have minded waiting a day or two longer for my goods, had I been ordering from you today. This is because I believe that we must protect the Royal Mail and ensure the survival of a service that operates for all, not just to cream off the profits from big business. I would obviously therefore, urge you to use Royal Mail in the future and support our national mail service.

In truth, I genuinely was saddened to read emails telling me it was OK, the companies in question did not use Royal Mail and that was a good thing. I believe that we must protect the jobs of the Royal Mail workers and the basis upon which the Royal Mail operates.

The private companies are not accountable to anyone except for their share-holders. Should they wish to sack 25% of their workers, to keep the dividends up, they will do so. If they want to increase the cost of postage, they can, it is not subject to any sort of pressure from parliament or held up to public scrutiny. As long as share-holders are happy, that is all that matters, even quality of service is a lower priority. It is why we have companies making redundancies because profits are down - not because turnover is in deficit, just profits and therefore share dividends are down.

If you receive an email like those that I have received, I urge you to let the company know that you disapprove of their disregard for our Royal Mail. Feel free to use any of my words if you so wish!

No-Platform? No Contest.

2009-10-15T21:16:00.012+01:00

I would like to propose a motion to establish a governing body that will oversee the proliferation of political information. Within the motion there will also be a requirement to close every library in the UK. This will be done in the interest of protecting the delicate nature of the minds of the general public and to ensure that they are not swayed by dangerous text and suggestions of activity that is undesirable. Access to the Internet should also be restricted under the motion and will enable the governing body to control who is permitted to offer their opinion for public consideration and debate.

Libraries are particularly dangerous places. To allow unrestricted access to some of the texts contained within these seemingly inoffensive and quiet mines of information is blatantly ridiculous. Should a copy of Mein Kampf be digested by an enquiring mind, who knows what it may lead to! The same can be said for The Communist Manifesto, surely a dangerous book if ever there was one - do we want to create a class war? Would we want unrestricted access to This Is Scientology by L. Ron Hubbard? Can you imagine what would happen if the general public read this and absorbed his theories and ideas completely? Particularly subversive is George Orwell's Animal Farm, ideas of class war, shrouded like a wolf in sheep's clothing, in the guise of a farmyard tale; similarly Gulliver's Travels which undermines a variety of political systems with its subtle satire! They must be removed from public access immediately.

Clearly I am being ironic but the basis of a no-platform policy flies directly in the face of freedom of speech. Why is it then, that so many people, who fight for the right of having freedoms that were previously denied to them by organisations, society in general, legislation and government are pro-no-platform? I do not understand this apparent contradiction.

I was saddened by the response of many Labour supporters and indeed the party itself in being reticent to debate openly with the British National Party when the BBC announced that Nick Griffin would be appearing on Question Time. Under British election law, the BNP had fielded enough candidates to entitle it to have a Party Election Broadcast transmitted in the run up to the last General Election. It is obvious to assume they will do so again during the next one, so to deny the electorate the opportunity to hear a counter argument is foolish at the very least, but it is more than that.

To refuse to openly confront them publicly and expose the bigotry and prejudice contained within the policies of a party such as the BNP says that you do not trust the electorate to make the right choice when faced with both sides of the argument. It also implies is that you do not trust the voracity of your own argument. That you think there is a risk of the BNP winning the argument because they have a stronger case than yours. Clearly they do not and what we must do is to ensure that whoever sits alongside them on the BBCQT panel has the kahunas to completely destroy Griffin and his politics of hate and division.

Do we really think anyone who doesn't really understand the BNP's fascist roots will watch BBC Question Time and listen to the racist rhetoric and be taken in by it when it is challenged and disproved by everyone else on the panel? There will be viewers who agree with Griffin, but they would agree with him on principle anyway, because they already share his vile, bigoted views on Britain and Britishness. They are the minority. The people who really need to hear the truth are those who think that the BNP is a valid protest vote or who agree with the occasional thing they hear. The party is adept at lies and the spread of fear, the only way to show this up for what it is, is to publicly expose it. They have so far not gained a foothold in Westminster, although they have increased their vote tally in every General Election since 1987. To keep them out of Parliament, the mainstream parties must work together. Whatever our other differences, this is one area of common ground that must be celebrated and publicly acknowledged. The political points scored will benefit us all. Cross-party representation must fight this out like a tag team, get up on that platform and knock the BNP down with truth and debate.

No-Platform is wrong, it allows the creeping, furtive dissemination of the BNP's ethos and ideas, allows their supporters to stand unchallenged on our streets, selling their newspapers and spouting their offensive views to everyone: man, woman and child. It has been proven in Barnsley just this week, we do better when we share a doorstep, a letterbox and a ballot paper with them. Reduce their overall vote, reduce their percentage of the vote and watch as they scurry off into the night.

This is a long-term battle that we have to win. To do so, we must confront, we must expose and on a strong platform of unity we must defeat them.

Never Has Anyone Said So Little, About So Much, For So Long

2009-10-08T17:43:00.011+01:00

How can someone speak for so long without actually saying anything? Amazing isn't it, but today, David Cameron spoke just under six-thousand-four-hundred words, orated for about an hour and said precisely nothing! Marcel Marceau would have been proud!

He told us nothing we didn't already know, made no new promises, reiterated the same old rhetoric about 'broken Britain' and I would guess, failed to convince a single undecided voter that they should support his now aimless party. A party that relies on copying almost every Labour policy that they have previously voted against!

Cameron now likes the minimum wage, despite originally being against it. He supports civil partnerships, despite voting against their introduction and against the repeal of Section 28 in 2003. Sure Start - Cameron thinks it's great....now, obviously he didn't previously but because the people like it, he does too! He is even a big fan of the NHS, despite his European Front-Bencher Daniel Hannan calling it a "sixty-year mistake".

It seems that Cameron has really taken his party's conference slogan "A Time for Change" to heart. He has changed his mind about almost everything over the past few years. Yet he expects the electorate to trust him and believe that he really is resolute and steadfast in his beliefs!

Cameron, a man who changes his tune so often, that eventually everyone hears a song they like. With all the Labour policies he's plagiarising, he'll be singing the Red Flag next.

The Day I Agreed With George Osborne

2009-10-06T19:09:00.004+01:00

Today was a strange day for me. It was a day when I discovered that I knew less about physics than I thought I did, a day when it seemed there was a conspiracy against me getting to work on time and most bizarrely of all, it was a day when I agreed with George Osborne.

I did not listen to Osborne's speech live, I heard snippets and news reports before being so stunned that I had to read a transcript of it to make sure what I had heard was true.

In summary, and forgive me if you have heard all this before, but apparently the Conservatives will increase health funding every year, they will keep the 50% tax rise on the highest earners, target off-shore tax havens, they will preserve child benefit, winter fuel payments and free TV licences for the elderly, child trust funds for the poorest families and they will restore the link between the basic state pension and earnings. Wow, what bold, impressive rhetoric!

Now that is a party I can really get behind. That is a party that has the best interest of the British people at heart. That is a party that...hold on just a minute... Something sounds familiar.

Of course! I am already behind the party that is responsible for those policies. In fact, I heard some of them being unveiled just last week. Every one of those exciting announcements is a policy that this Labour Government has either already put into place or has already declared as a future plan.

No need to wonder who Osborne sat next to in the 'Policy Exam' is there?

Look George, it's so nice of you to say so and yes, I completely agree, this Labour Government has achieved some wonderful things and has bold, progressive policies. You admire them so much that you want them for yourself. It does beg the question of why you voted against so many of them though, doesn't it?

Popping the Question (About Popping the Pills)

2009-09-29T12:38:00.006+01:00

There are those on opposite sides politically, who are in absolute agreement on the question of what counts as political fair game. Is there a line? Where does it fall? Or, is it a dynamic measure based on who is being asked, the current climate and what is 'hot' in the media?

So Andrew Marr asked Gordon Brown about prescription drug use.

He is a journalist.

It is his job to ask the questions that the public want answers to but would not get chance to ask for themselves. It is fair to say that this was a question some wanted asking and in the US, it would have been expected and prepared for.

Why exactly are people so outraged by it? When the rumours about Cameron's drug use were being passed around, Marr asked him about it. He has, in fact asked Cameron about drug use three times - and didn't receive anything like a full and frank answer - but surely that is the first point to consider in his defence. If a rumour or other unsubstantiated story regarding personal and private aspects of the interviewee's life is to be addressed, the subject can choose to dismiss it as such, (as Cameron has done) or to refute and rebut the claims.

The electorate are expressing a desire for our politicians to be more open and honest, it has been said that we need to stop expecting them to be anything other than merely human, just like you and me, to allow them to have normal lives and to occasionally make mistakes. I'm unsure as to how far this should go, personally I don't need nor want to know all about my MP and his private affairs; as long as he is doing the job he was elected for, that is what matters.

So that leads onto the second issue of whether a personal question should be asked because it is in the public interest to know. Most would agree that if the answer could call into question the ability or judgement of the individual it probably is in the public interest to know but as to who decides what IS in the public interest, that is an altogether more complicated question. We must accept that if we are to have a press that is able to challenge and confront on our behalf, as they claim to do, sometimes they may overstep the mark.

I watched the interview and felt that Marr was reasonably gentle in the lead up to "the question" and allowed Gordon Brown the time to answer as fully as he wished. Even Brown said he may well be right to ask it, although he expressed disappointment, saying that this type of question was "all too often entering the lexicon of British Politics." This is just one area in which British politics is becoming more like politics in the US. Blair embraced a more 'Presidential Style' during his tenure and it must be accepted that those in the periphery of Westminster would respond accordingly, including the press.

Ultimately, the biggest problem is not the question being asked, but the fact that the interviewee is unable to answer completely openly and honestly. Can you imagine if Brown had said, "Well, actually it has been a tough year and I was having a bit of back trouble, those co-codamol are the bomb!"

Political Pro's: Decision Time

2009-09-03T22:11:00.000+01:00

Recently, I blogged about the political crossroads at which I find myself. If I visualise it, it is like a scene from that movie, with Ralph Macchio, where he meets the devil and sells his soul to play guitar. I've had to google it to find what it is called and of course, it's 'Crossroads'!

The particular crossroads I stand at has a number of roads that I could take, the one I have arrived from, that I have walked along for many years now, continues ahead of me. In recent years, it has been a much more arduous trek, (see my previous Blog) and I'm not sure if I can or even if I want to cope with the difficult journey ahead. To help me make up my mind, I think it is only fair, as I have written about why I am disillusioned, that I also consider what has kept me on this road for so long, and why I feel so attached to it, despite the disappointment and upset it has caused me of late.

I must also state, very clearly, that my issues are with the National Labour Party and absolutely not with my local Labour party. I am fortunate to live in a metropolitan borough that has been under Labour control for more years than I have lived here. They have made some monumental achievements and genuinely want and work towards ensuring the very best in services and standards for the people in our town.

So, I will get on with the articles for the defence. First on my list, without question, is something that Labour did way before I was even born, but is something that saw me brought into the world, has helped me at various times throughout my life, safely delivered my own children to my arms and fairly recently helped to make sure I will live to see them grow.

As you probably know, I am only here because of our wonderful NHS. I have no qualms about praising it to the highest degree. It has no equal, nothing that can beat it, it is the four aces in my poker game of political dilemma. I have absolutely no faith in the Conservatives or David Cameron as guardian of our health services. Under eighteen-years of Conservative rule, the NHS was abused and attacked, with ward closures being commonplace. In 1997, when this Labour government came to power, more than 50% of NHS buildings pre-dated the NHS; today more than 95% of NHS buildings are purpose-built for it. As we all shouted #welovetheNHS and celebrated its 60th birthday, Daniel Hannan and the Conservative Policy Team were drawing up plans to destroy the NHS as we know it and create a system that puts shareholders and profits before patients and health care.

The NHS was conceived, nurtured, protected and restored by Labour and I genuinely believe that only Labour will continue to ensure that our NHS provides care for all, free at the point of need.

So, that was the easy one. What next? As a woman and mother, I am proud of what Labour has done to ensure that women have equality in the workplace and equal opportunity and choice. There are a number of achievements that come under this banner, excuse me for rolling them all into this one ball. The provision of good quality, affordable childcare, Surestart, free nursery places for three and four year-olds and improvements to maternity leave and pay have enabled women to have more options in their work and home lives. Working families have benefited under Tax Credits and by far the largest percentage of those helped by the National Minimum Wage have been women.

Also under the banner of 'Equality' is the 2003 repeal of Section 28, which ended the Conservative Government's 1988 legislation permitting legal discrimination on the grounds of sexual preference. Interestingly, despite voting against the repealing of Section 28 in 2003, David Cameron has recently apologised for it; demonstrating yet another 'change of heart' over a vote-winning issue - but that is a list for another day!

Helping those who need it most is one of the basic aims that lead to the birth of Socialism. I am proud of every true socialist achievement of this Labour Government, helping those in need both at home and overseas. In travelling to some of the world's poorest areas, in South America and Africa, I have witnessed genuine poverty first-hand. This Labour government has worked to ensure that up to 100% of the debt of the world's poorest countries has been written off and has helped charities working for those in need, both here and abroad, by the introduction of Gift Aid. In real-terms this has added hundreds of millions of pounds to charitable donations each year and in particular, at a time when the economic downturn has caused a reduction in charitable donations, gift aid has provided a cushion to ease the fall in revenue.

I am not naive enough to think that anyone could join a political party and agree with absolutely everything they propose. What I have come to realise though is that, in much the same way that I fell in love, a relationship with a political party is like a marriage. You have disagreements, feel unappreciated sometimes, flirt with others now and then, but ultimately you have to remember what drew you to making the commitment in the first place.

Maybe that is what we need to do, something like the equivalent of Relate counselling for us and the electorate, make sure they remember why they voted Labour in the first place and help them to work through their feelings of anger and frustration. Admit that we have made mistakes, reassure them that we will listen in future and tell them that we understand why they strayed to Cameron. Ultimately we must remind people that the reasons they turned to Labour are still valid.

I hate using the 'lesser of two evils' argument when pushed into a corner but I had gotten into a rut of using it, (more as my own defence than anything!). Don't get me wrong, it stands up, I believe that Labour is the only viable option in light of the global situation we are currently facing and they are the only party who can take on and defeat the rise of the far right. I cannot imagine the damage David Cameron and his Cabinet of millionaires will do to our public services should we allow them to take charge. We must fight tooth and nail for a fourth term, we owe it to those who have stuck with the party, but most importantly we owe it to everyone who needs Labour fighting for them, for they will be abandoned and forgotten should Cameron ever achieve his Eton-bred birthright of becoming PM.

Right, will someone please pass me a pen?

I Fell In and Out of Love

2009-08-25T13:52:00.000+01:00

My Labour party membership was due for renewal in September-08. My partner, being a Labour Councillor and for whom I have enormous respect, was on my case to renew but I couldn't. You see, I had fallen out of love.

I grew up in a true blue Tory household, with a father who cast his aspirational vote for whoever wore the blue rosette. As a small business owner he felt that he had risen above the Labour vote that he had been brought up with, bettered himself and to vote Tory was proof of his success.

Politics was never a major part of our lives, Thatcher was elected when I was too young to understand or care much and all I knew was that it was good, because that is what I heard. My Dad was the worst kind of Tory snob, actually working class but in total denial. A well-practised 'Oxford accent' for when he met new people and upon first answering the telephone and he never went anywhere without a shirt and tie. He considered all Labour politicians to be "thick" (I think that was because they mostly spoke with regional accents) and the Tory's were the only ones who could be trusted to run the country. The miners were all rough troublemakers who the government had to crush and Scargill needed to be put in his place. So, you get it. I was brainwashed Tory from birth.

Politics passed me by and I didn't even rush out to vote when I turned 18. I eventually cast my first vote in a local election, probably in about 1993 and yes, I voted Conservative.

My transformation into a Labour voter began very gently, with John Smith. Even my Mom liked John Smith, I think almost everyone did. When he died so suddenly, Tony Blair picked up the reins and continued to guide me towards the left. I was full of the heady excitement that new romance brings, I loved Labour and what it stood for, I gladly shouted my love for the left and stood up to my parents in the face of their disapproval towards my new infatuation.

I joined the labour party shortly after the 1997 election. I was proud to be a card-carrying member and was proud of what Labour achieved once in power. I debated politics gladly, I enjoyed nothing more than a good discussion on the merits of the minimum wage, the advances in healthcare and particularly in trying to demonstrate to my parents that, as pensioners, they were so much better off under Labour.

My first major crisis of faith came in 2003. Yes, you know what I am going to say don't you? At the time, I was undecided about whether we should invade or not, which is unusual for me, being quite a strong, opinionated woman. I was however, certain that we should not go in without UN approval. Then, I discovered that, not only was the majority of the country against the invasion, the majority of the Labour party was against it too. The absolute lack of democracy shocked me; the constituencies had absolutely no voice.

My second crisis of faith, also in 2003, was student top up fees. I was a student at the time and knew just how much this would hurt normal working class families and affect the opportunities of some students when it came to higher education. There is no place for a market in education and this policy was turning the whole arena into just that.

There have been many more crises since then, particularly SOCPA and ID cards, I will never voluntarily apply for an identity card and to suggest that we will beat terrorism in this way is frankly ridiculous. I won't list everything that Labour has done to annoy me, that would take a long time and already this blog is longer than I wanted it to be!

There are many who say that we need to stick with the party, reclaim it and make it the socialist defender of the working people that it once was. But how are we to do this, if the hierarchy refuse to even engage with the consituencies. It is difficult to have a debate at party level, the branch meetings can debate and argue policy until they are blue in the face but who listens? At the 2004 conference, a campaign was begun that aimed to reinstate democratic processes within the party, ultimately it achieved very little, Blair had no interest in giving grassroots members more power and the conference again was little more than a glitzy PR show.

The argument for reclaiming the Labour Party at grassroots level is weak. The Labour government and Labour party has lost so many members now that there are only a fraction left to reclaim it. By defending the position of 'sticking it out' so we can build it back up, we are preventing the natural and necessary death of 'New Labour'. There is no genuine, widely appealing, socialist alternative. The electorate are often heard saying that politicians are "all the same", this is because they are all trying so hard to be popular, that they are filling the same ground with their bland, try-to-please-everyone policies, except New Labour are even getting that wrong.

While this continues, the parties who offer a genuine alternative will continue to grow. More seats will be won by parties at the fringes of acceptability and the Conservative party - who changes its message so often that everyone eventually hears something they agree with - will prosper. There is a void, an empty chair at the dinner table, it is where Labour used to sit.

I have come a long way from the naive girl who gazed adoringly at her new love. For this, I really owe a huge debt of gratitude to Blair, he was the main driving force behind my embarking on this journey and to my joining Labour. The problem was, he stopped driving to the left but I carried on. For this I feel enormous resentment towards him and to the party hierarchy who enjoyed power too much and allowed him to do it.

In the end, I renewed my membership. I continue to vote Labour because I can't in my heart put that 'X' anywhere else. I genuinely believe that in my local area, Labour is the best option - probably because they are all 'Old Labour'. Still, it's July and in a few short weeks, September will be upon us and that renewal notice will again drop onto the mat. Who knows what will happen this time.

A Burning Incentive

2009-08-23T11:36:00.013+01:00

In 2007, BP in conjunction with it's 'Libyan partner' the Libyan Investment Corporation (LIC), signed an agreement with the National Oil Company (NOC) of Libya. According to their Chief Executive Tony Hayward, it was BP's "single biggest exploration commitment". Mr Hayward and NOC Chairman Shokri Ghanem, sealed the deal in the presence of then British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The benefits of the agreement were explained by BP in their press release at the time:

BP and the LIC will explore around 54,000 square kilometres (km2) of the onshore Ghadames and offshore frontier Sirt basins, equivalent to more than ten of BP's operated deepwater blocks in Angola. Successful exploration could lead to the drilling of around 20 appraisal wells.

During this exploration and appraisal phase, BP will acquire 5,500km of 2D seismic and 30,000km2 of 3D seismic and will drill 17 exploration wells.

"We are delighted to be working with the National Oil Company of Libya to develop their natural resources for domestic and international markets. Our agreement is the start of an enduring, long-term and mutually beneficial partnership with Libya,"

A big commitment indeed, with BP having being absent from the Libyan Oil Industry for over 30 years. There had been much negotiation and the promise of BP spending $50 million on education and training projects for Libyan professionals during exploration and appraisal and a further $50 million when production began.

It is fair to assume that there was fierce competition, as Libya was not only opening the doors of its lucrative oil industry to BP, but to other international oil companies, having seen international relations warming since sanctions were lifted in 2004. However, since the deals were forged, there have been numerous logistical problems preventing BP (and others) from bringing in the necessary equipment to fulfil the contracts. Libyan Bureaucracy has delayed permits and prevented completion of the required official paperwork.

Back in July, Gordon Brown held talks with Colonel Gaddafi during the G8 conference. They are known to have discussed the fate of the convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi and Gaddafi apparently 'urged' Brown to allow his sentence to be served out in Libya, due to his terminal illness. Brown called Libya a "critical partner" due to its role as an oil producer and the two leaders agreed on the need for better consumer and producer dialogue over oil. As an aside, Downing Street also confirmed that:

Nuclear proliferation, rising oil prices and better representation for Africa on international institutions like the IMF or World Bank were also covered in the 45-minute meeting.

It has been suggested that the release of al-Megrahi would demonstrate the UK's commitment to Libya and help to eliminate the red-tape being used to delay the current BP deal. As the deal is worth around $900 million and has the potential for knock-on effects across the energy industry in the UK and Europe, the motivation to comply with Gaddafi's request is clear.

In recent months, Tripoli has been holding negotiations for not only oil and gas but also arms deals and with not only the UK but also with Russia. (Given the history, it might be surprising to discover that Libya is not on the list of countries that British Arms Companies are banned from exporting to.) Then consider that Libya holds the largest stock of oil reserves in Africa, at 42 billion barrels and has enormous potential for large resources of gas. With the current position regarding Russian gas exports and the reliance on imports for 40% of the UK's gas; an alternative source would prove very useful and add vital security to the UK energy market.

In 2008, Vladimir Putin travelled to Tripoli. He is keen to obtain access to Libyan gas and further compound his country's position as the world's largest producer of gas. He also wishes to forge long-term arms deals and site a Russian Naval base on Libyan soil. This causes concern in Europe, given the additional leverage this would allow Russia to have over gas supplies across the continent. The US would also be unhappy should such a partnership be achieved.

Suddenly Libya is a very willing player, being courted by several suitors and knowing exactly how to play this game of international tease.

Despite Mandelson's affront and denials, is it really a surprise that al-Megrahi was released, when the competition between Libya's courtiers is considered. It would be naive to believe that with Blair being present for the birth of the BP/NOC deal, that Brown would not be playing a God-fatherly role and doing what he could to preserve it. So while the anti-Brown/Labour bandwagon fires up with their outrage at the release, I have to say that I doubt any Prime Minister in this position would do any different.

A Very British Festival

2009-08-17T18:26:00.006+01:00

I spent this past weekend, along with my family, at a festival full of the very best of British. What a wonderful experience, people all gathered together with a common interest, a common goal and a camaraderie of spirit that ensured a good time was had by all.

We travelled to the countryside in our own mini-convoy of two cars. As we entered the lane to the farm, we were handed leaflets by a group of people standing in the road and were directed to the entrance by an army of uniforms with their high-visibility jackets marking the road ahead. We were directed to the field, set our pitch and took a moment to take in the spectacle of the flags, flying proudly above various camper-vans, motor-homes and tents.

Most of the people there were in groups - families and friends, everyone pitching in and helping out, very friendly and welcoming of us first-timers. I admit, that I had been a bit worried about going to the festival with the children, but I didn't need to be, we were among peaceful people, who only wanted to spend a weekend celebrating something synonymous with their cultural heritage.

We were in the small village of Cropredy, in Oxfordshire, specifically at Fairport Convention's Cropredy Convention, a folk festival that has been held there for the past 42 years. We and over twenty-thousand others, were listening to comedy & wit from Phil Cool and Richard Digance, wonderful music from the likes of the Buzzcocks, Nik Kershaw, Ade Edmondson & the Bad Shepherds, the Dodge Brothers, Seth Lakeman, Steve Winwood, Dreadzone, Fairport Convention and the legend that is Yusuf, (the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens). It really was a reflection of the wonderful British culture, with people from every walk of life, families, retired couples, groups of young people, ageing-hippies, rockers, bikers, punks, students, stereotypical Scots (the McBastards, we salute you!) the middle-classes, gay, straight, wizards too, according to our five-year-old. Hey, there were even people from other lands, who had travelled from overseas and every single one of these people were allowed to be themselves, without judgement or disparagement and were welcomed equally and warmly by all, whatever clothes or novelty-style hat they were wearing - and boy, there were a few crackers!

Meanwhile, and by contrast, a racist rally, masquerading as a festival was being held in the small village of Codnor, Derbyshire. Here the BNP was holding its annual event for the third year running. The crowd (it is difficult to find an estimate of numbers, I have seen 'hundreds' mentioned, although the BNP did say they were expecting up to six-thousand) were "treated" to a rogues gallery of speakers, from around the UK, with arrests and convictions for a range of offences, including public order, distribution of racist material and even murder. The list of organisations that the VIP speakers had or still hold membership of ranged from the National Front, National Democrats, to the American White Supremacy group the National Alliance and the German NDP.

In the middle of the fascists' fun was a mock graveyard, for families to enjoy, a coconut shy, featuring the face of Sir Trevor Phillips, a raffle and other fairground stalls. Information was provided on handling hostile media interviews, tracing your ancestors (and hiding any evidence of non-white heritage, no doubt) and there was a morning service (I assume non-denominational) by their very own counterfeit cleric Robert West. Their specially-invited VIP guest speaker, the US White Supremacist Preston Wiginton, had to send his apologies from Heathrow, where he was barred from entering the country and returned to New York, as the UK Border Agency had intelligence that led them to believe he would promote extremism, hatred and violent messages.

In Cropredy, the leaflets being handed out were from the village primary school, welcoming festival goers and offering them a free cup of tea or coffee if they came to the school for a Cropredy Breakfast-in-a-Bun; the uniforms were Scouts and St John Ambulance members from around the country volunteering their time. The village pubs had their own fringe events and the village hall offered afternoon tea. They are used to the festival and the good-natured guests it brings. There were a few PCSO around but with not one reported theft in 2008 and no trouble, there was no requirement for a heavy Police presence.

Again, in contrast, in Codnor, the people lining the streets were protesters, angry at the celebration of hate that was going on in the field beyond the English country hedgerow and the uniforms belonged to the 500+ Police Officers protecting the fascists. Although the BNP official line is that the residents of Codnor fully support the festival, it is hard to believe that when it is reported that the local pub has a sign reading "No BNP", locals are quoted as saying the BNP are "racist and divisive" and there are reports from the villagers that they witnessed BNP festival goers goose-stepping and shouting "Heil Hitler" during last years jamboree!

So, one weekend, two festivals, they couldn't be more different in their aim, ambience, inclusiveness but most importantly, their Britishness. One thing is certain, the villagers of Cropredy are proud to be the home of Fairport's wonderful Cropredy Convention and its tradition and heritage will probably live on for at least another forty years - I am sure the same cannot be said for the festival of hate that the villagers of Codnor unwittingly find themselves associated with.

The English Patient

2009-08-11T22:06:00.007+01:00

If ever there was a week when a reality check about standards in health care was needed, this is it. In the United States, Republicans and the conservative right are condemning the British NHS and employing the all-too-willing services of Conservative MEP & media-whore Daniel Hannan to further their agenda in sabotaging President Obama's health care reforms.

To illustrate the difference between a good public health care system (the NHS) and a poor one, I will relay the story of a friend of mine, who returned from overseas last week, after extending her holiday with a stay in two hospitals. She is a responsible traveller, had travel insurance and was familiar with the country she was in, having travelled there several times before.

Three days into her week-long holiday, Kate went on a boat trip with her husband John. While on the boat, she slipped, fell and broke several ribs. She was taken by ambulance to the hospital in the main town on the island. She arrived in A & E in excruciating pain, to discover that there was no triage, no reception desk, just a room, full to bursting with people waiting to see one of the two Doctors sitting at tables at one end. There were a few locals, quite a gathering of Brits, (that had mostly been involved in scooter or quad-bike accidents) and a few other Europeans, all involved in a free-for-all, trying to obtain medical attention.

Eventually, still in intense pain, Kate was taken into a treatment room. It was small, with four gurneys, three with patients already occupying them, male and female. Kate was told to lie on the vacant gurney and wait for the Doctor. There were no curtains, screens or gowns. Kate was stripped to waist for an ECG with no consideration for her privacy or dignity and while this was done, the door was constantly being opened for everyone in the waiting room to see. The room was filthy, there was plaster and blood on the floor, and while the ECG was being done, the cleaner came in and mopped around Kate's gurney!

After a chest x-ray, Kate was advised she had to be admitted for observation for 24-hours, as she had definitely broken her ribs but had not punctured her lung. (Remember that, it is important later, she had not punctured her lung). She was taken to the ward and given a bed in a side room; there were just two beds and the other was empty. The paint was peeling off the window sills and the room was dirty. The nurses didn't seem to mind Kate's husband staying with her, until that is, the Doctor came round, when he was rudely ordered to wait outside for the duration of the consultation. He stayed with Kate all evening and eventually lay down on the empty bed and slept.

Kate was thankful that John was with her because it very soon became apparent that the nurses in the hospital gave medicines and tests but absolutely no care whatsoever. A carer had to stay with the patient in order to get them drinks, go to the shop to buy their food and to help them to the toilet. None of this was part of the nurses job. The nurses made no eye-contact and did not even change gloves between patients. The thermometers were mercury and used without covers, the same one being used from patient to patient. This was a hospital that was at least 40-years out of date!

The following morning, a German woman was put into the empty bed - no fresh bedding, just used, exactly as it was left after John had got out of it. The German patient's husband left her at 8 pm that evening and returned the following morning at 11 am. As he hadn't been there to take her to the toilet, she had wet the bed.

Kate was sent to a private clinic for an abdominal scan as the hospital did not have an ultrasound machine. Upon her return to the hospital, the Doctor checked the results and was happy with what he saw. He discharged her, telling her to return in two days for another x-ray to make sure she could fly home. Two days later, the Doctor was happy to issue Kate with a 'Fit-to-Fly' certificate and allowed her to leave.

Luckily, the insurance company were a little more cautious and contacted Kate to ask her to go to another clinic for a final x-ray and ultrasound before they would let her travel home. When the Doctor at this clinic (6 days after she had been originally taken to hospital) saw the films, he immediately ordered an ambulance to return Kate to the hospital as she had a Pneumothorax and a Haemothorax, or collapsed lung due to it being punctured and a build-up of blood in the lung. John asked if there was an alternative, as he wasn't happy with Kate going back to the same hospital. The Doctor said that unfortunately it would be too dangerous to fly Kate to the mainland, even at low altitude as it was a medical emergency and she needed a chest drain urgently.

So, it was back to the dirty, ill-equipped hospital. The chest drain was done - again John was not allowed into the treatment room and Kate had to endure the pain and discomfort with no explanation or care. This time, Kate shared a room with another patient, who had been in alone for two days and had eaten nothing because no one had been there to fetch her something until John, kindly did so. The following day the Doctor from the clinic arrived and said that he wasn't happy that the hospital had the facilities to deal with Kate's injury. He ordered an air ambulance for that low-altitude flight to the mainland and the country's foremost medical centre, based in the Capital.

The Hospital in the large city was much better than the small-town infirmary, but still there were obvious and disturbing differences in the standard of care and medical facilities in comparison with what Kate, as a nurse herself, was used to in the NHS hospital she works in.

Putting this dreadful experience into context: the hospitals Kate experienced were not in the developing world. They were in Greece, an EU member state.

Meanwhile in the US, Euro-MP Mr Hannan is happy to reinforce the blatantly untrue claims of his Republican chums, such as Senator Chuck Grassley, who recently claimed that NHS care is so bad that Ted Kennedy would "be left to die untreated from a brain tumour" because he is 77 and at that age "your life is considered less valuable" under the NHS. Try telling that to the 80-something lady who sat opposite me in the chemotherapy suite at my local NHS hospital, having her breast cancer treatment.

Maybe Daniel Hannan has an evil "today Europe, tomorrow the World!" megalomaniacal plan and that is why he seems to be spending more time on American TV than in Brussels recently. Whatever his long-term career goals, what he is actually doing is spreading propaganda and deliberate misinformation, in an attempt to sabotage reforms that will benefit the poorest Americans. His denigration of the NHS and its staff serves David Cameron's Conservative Agenda to undermine the most significant Socialist achievement of modern times.

Then & Now, Why We Must Not Forget Zimbabwe

2009-08-07T13:21:00.013+01:00

As US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton uses her position to push for political reform in Zimbabwe, a year after I travelled there, I wonder how many of us remember the situation and crises the innocent people face.

Just over a year ago, Zimbabwe was on every news broadcast, in every newspaper and all over the Internet. It was election time and the popularity of Morgan Tsvangirai and his Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) had fanned the flames of progress and democracy. There were high hopes in Zimbabwe and around the world, that finally, Robert Mugabe would be forced to relinquish the power he had wielded with an iron-grip for 28 years.

There were accusations of genocidal killings, of attempts to fix the election and stories of danger and violence across the country. Nonetheless, people across Zimbabwe were determined to use their democratic vote, even if the legitimacy of previous election results had been called into question. The world watched. Maybe it was because of this that it was harder for a contrived outcome to be achieved. On 29th March 2008, the electorate dealt a fatal blow to the controlling Zimbabwe National African Union - Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) and for the first time, since his election in 1980, Mugabe lost.

Mugabe's response was to withhold the results and refuse to concede defeat. It was finally acknowledged that the MDC had won a significant number of seats and a run-off election was announced. In the following weeks, a country-wide clampdown was launched against opposition supporters, violence flared and there were many deaths. This lead Morgan Tsvangirai to withdraw from the June 27 presidential run-off, allowing Mugabe to claim an uncontested victory.

On that very day, along with my 9-year-old son and a Dutch friend, I walked across the border into Zimbabwe. After a slight delay at immigration, when I was questioned to make sure I was not a member of the media, we were allowed in.

The people welcomed us warmly, in fact, they were delighted to see us. The sanctions and International Foreign Office warnings had meant that most visitors and tourists were keeping well away. We were told that tourist money is the only way that the people can make a living as it is the only income that is not controlled by the state. Yes, the shelves in the supermarkets were almost empty, the cafés and bars were empty and there were many people on the streets trying to sell their wares. The poverty was in evidence everywhere but there was no begging. Help was needed so desperately, but money was only accepted as part of a transaction. I bought a few things and spent only a few US$. Haggling felt wrong, the vendors were so desperate that they would lower their prices to just $1 for something that would usually sell for ten-times that.

Change was so desperately needed but the people could not see when it would come or from where. They felt let down by the more-powerful African nations and prayed for intervention. Talks began in late July 2008, with South African President Thabo Mbeki acting as mediator. Finally, an agreement for power-sharing was reached in September 2008, keeping Mugabe in post as President and appointing Tsvangirai as Prime Minister. There were many problems in ironing out the details of the agreement and allocation of ministerial posts, which meant that the agreement was not formally approved and implemented until shortly after Tsvangirai was sworn in, in February 2009

Whilst all the political to-ing and fro-ing was going on, the people of Zimbabwe continued to suffer. A major crisis in standards of living emerged, with a major outbreak of cholera and malnutrition was again affecting large numbers of the population

Fast forward a year and consider the current situation. Has anything changed? Well, according to the World Health Organisation, life expectancy at birth for males in Zimbabwe is just 37 years, for females, it is just 34. Infant mortality is reported as being 129 deaths per 1,000 live births Although the rates of infection are falling, there are still more than 1.6 million adults affected by HIV

The people of Zimbabwe still need our help. Despite improvement, many still suffer and live in appalling conditions, with shortages in food, medicines and health care. Today, US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, meets with South African Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma. Clinton has called for South Africa to again use its influence to accelerate Zimbabwean political reform and enable the release of much-needed aid. With South Africa currently having more than 3 million Zimbabwean refugees, it is in their interest to pressure the government to act, as Clinton says "...every one of those refugees represents a failure of the Zimbabwean government to care for its own people and a burden that South Africa has to bear."

She will meet with South African President Jacob Zuma tomorrow (Saturday), lets hope she continues her strong words to ensure his support. Particularly as she has also emphasised that the US will not offer any programme of major aid nor will it lift sanctions until reform is evident.

Zimbabwe may not be in the news, but we must not forget. The people of Zimbabwe cannot wait, they suffer now.

Not Doing Me Any Favours

2009-08-04T11:19:00.004+01:00

As a woman who is, most definitely, a feminist, I was expected by several of my friends to agree with Harriet Harman's recent comments on women in leadership roles. With much of what she said, I do. With women having a more proportional share of power and representation in the boardroom, I totally agree.

What I cannot agree with however, is how she felt it necessary to have a 'bit of a go' at men, in order to strengthen her argument. It did not strengthen her argument, it did the opposite. Now the message has been totally lost in the analysis and dissection of her alleged misandry.

So let's analyse some of the phrases she used.

“In a country where women regard themselves as equal, they are not prepared to see men just running the show themselves. I think a balanced team of men and women makes better decisions.”

I quite agree! This would be a wonderful and strong call on behalf of women, to demonstrate that they are quite capable of achieving a position in the upper echelons. She would have demonstrated that she really is committed to her equality brief... had it not been preceded by the short phrase:

“Men cannot be left to run things on their own. I think it’s a thoroughly bad thing to have a men-only leadership.”

Imagine for a moment, John Prescott uttering the phrase, "Women cannot be left to run things on their own." Now imagine the absolute outcry this would elicit from the press and from women everywhere, (not just those from the feminist lobby). I would certainly be calling for his head on a stick - whatever the context might have been! This one phrase over-shadowed any good she may have done by making Harman, not her message, the news story.

John Prescott responded to these comments on his Go Fourth website, (http://www.gofourth.co.uk/dear-harriet) he said:

"Why take away from the party the right to choose its leaders on the basis of ability? You can't dictate equality in leadership elections. You must let the party decide.
"I was beaten fair and square in the 1992 deputy leadership election by Margaret Beckett."

"You yourself beat four men to become deputy leader in 2007."
"In theory you were elected on merit, not your gender. The system works and I think we should keep it that way."

Now, this brings me onto another of my bug-bears with the Labour Party and how the national party hierarchy operate to a completely separate agenda to that which they impose at local level. Prescott says that in theory Harriet Harman was elected based upon merit, not her gender and that this system works and should be retained. Many local constituency branches are, at this point scratching their heads, as they have seen the best, most-likely-to-win-over-the-public, impressive and able candidates being refused the opportunity to stand for election based purely on their gender!

The equality laws actually excluded political parties, just so the gender balance could be addressed and all-women shortlists could be imposed. So, the first thing to be assessed on whether someone is fit for public office is not their ability, it is their gender. There could be a woman, living more than 10 miles away from the ward in question, who would love to be a Local Councillor but lacks every quality necessary and a man, who lives in the ward and would be the best representative the electorate could have. Under current party rules, she would be short-listed and he would not.

A poorly achieving woman in a public role does the women's movement no favours at all, never mind short-changing the electorate and the party.

Harriet Harman does say something else in the Times interview that I agree with, regarding female role-models in politics, she said:

"Margaret Thatcher used to be the only role model, but she’s not a role model for today’s generation of female leaders,” she says. “Thatcher was like: I can do it as well as men, I can do it on men’s terms. Now it is about women doing it because they are women, not despite it.”

Very true, but it is also about women doing it because they have the ability, because they are the best candidates and because they really are equal, not because some men have told us it's OK or have given us permission. That is patronising and insulting, it demeans the achievements of all the women who have attained high office and to all the women who can and will do it without any 'favours' from the lads.

Jade's Legacy

2009-07-30T12:32:00.003+01:00

I wrote this on Friday, 03 April 2009 Just to add my two penneth to all of the opinions being spouted about Jade Goody in light of her premature death.

There are many things that have already been said about the life and death of Jade Goody, but what was her legacy? Everyone has to have a legacy these days, good or bad, from politicians to actors to teachers and chefs.

As someone who watched her roller-coaster life from the sidelines, often with a mixture of derision and pity, I was never really a big fan. I was horrified by the footage of the infamous Big Brother battle between Goody and Shilpa Shetty and this simply reinforced my opinion that Jade was a misplaced role model, giving credence to the children who tell their careers advisers that when they grow up they 'want to be famous'.

When I heard of her cancer diagnosis it shocked and upset me. As a breast cancer patient with young children, I instinctively knew what Jade was going through. Her fears for her children, the sudden awareness of her own mortality and anger at the injustice of it all.

There is no denying that she was inexcusably robbed of her childhood, let down by her parents, family, education and the state. I remember reading in a magazine, a 'top tip' by Jade, which advised women to keep teaspoons in the fridge so that if you have been crying and your eyes are red and puffy, you can place the teaspoons on your eyelids to help soothe them. Immediately I felt great pity for Jade; I surmised that for someone to have such a tactic, she must have cried frequently and was always prepared for the next bout of tears.

And cry again she did, on television for everyone to see, as she was given some of the most devastating news a young mother can be given. I clearly remember the day of my diagnosis, I see it almost as though it too was on a television screen. I can visualise the room, with my Consultant, clinical staff and a MacMillan Nurse; my husband and I sat waiting for the hammer-blow. No matter how much you expect it or – as in my case – are in denial about it, that is what it is. It was wrong that Jade was given this news in the most heartless and cruel way, on the telephone with no support and no one to hand her a tissue or offer a comforting hand. Revenge in the highest, Shilpa had been upset by Jade in the UK 'Big Brother' house and now, Jade had been reduced to a wreck in the Indian 'Big Boss' house, in the most dramatic way possible.

Jade was a force in the media, she milked her fifteen-minutes and stretched it into years of fame, on the basis of being a gobby girl from a rough part of South London. She told her story throughout her illness, the only way she knew how, through the television camera and celebrity magazines. She was no intellect, probably wouldn't have been able to write the diary of a terminal prognosis as John Diamond and Ruth Picardie had done so eloquently, but then, Jade's core fans would probably not have read such things. She knew who she was, where she was and what she was famous for, the only way for Jade to tell her story was on television, that is where we met her, loved or loathed her and watched as she thoroughly enjoyed every minute of her fame.

Many of us underestimated Jade, when asked if she was going to sue because of the delay in correctly diagnosing her cancer, she replied that she didn't think people should sue the NHS. A stand that I respected her for, she showed that she wouldn't do anything for money. Ghost-written autobiographies, perfume and fly-on-the-wall documentaries are positively respectable compared with what some reality TV 'stars' do in the name of 'celebrity' and at least Jade was always fully dressed when she fell out of a nightclub!

I did not know Jade, but I and many other parents I have spoken with or read comments from on Internet discussion boards have a very basic commonality with Jade that allows us to feel much empathy for her. As parents, we cannot comprehend the idea of leaving our children while they are young and still need us. For Jade to have to do that, aged 27 and still so young herself is tragic.

I read with interest her ideas for how to explain her diagnosis and prognosis to her boys, I didn't agree with what she chose to tell them but I understand that it is an incredibly personal and difficult thing to do. How do you tell your children that when you didn't look or feel ill, you actually were ill, and now, the medicine that you are being given to help fight the illness is actually making you look and feel very ill indeed? It is hard enough for an adult to comprehend the disregard cancer has for everything one holds precious, without trying to explain that to a child.

For those of us who have received a cancer diagnosis Jade has brought our fears back to the fore. We have had our surgery, the horror of chemotherapy and seen our children, watching us suffer the indignity of it all and not understanding why Mummy is so ill and has no hair. We have endured the devastation that cancer wreaks on every aspect of our lives, how it changes you, your relationships, your career, your family and your life forever more. But we are the lucky ones.

We were not claimed by cancer, we live on. Jade's legacy is not her 'kebab', the 'BB race row' or anything she did in the name of fame. Jade's legacy is simply this: there are women today who will live to see their children grow because Jade did not. Cervical screening rates are up and some young women are going for the first time for a smear test; lives will be saved.

Jade achieved something no one ever expected of her, something respectable and something for which many will be thankful. That is her legacy.