Tickling Miliband

I've had a little back and forth on Twitter today about Ed Miliband. My tweet that started the dialogue was this: Hang on, Ed Miliband believes he would've got a better deal for Britain? What, by rolling over and letting Sarkozy tickle his tummy?" Perhaps a little inflammatory but Prime Minister's Questions does that to me. Anyway, I was engaged in debate by someone who seems to think that it doesn't matter what Ed Miliband would've done had he been in David Cameron's shoes last Thursday/Friday because it's 'fiction'. While I understand the sentiment, I can't agree with it. As you can't judge the Leader of the Opposition on the policies he implements, shouldn't you be able to judge him on what he said he would do? How else are you supposed to get the measure of him and decide whether you would vote for him in a General Election?

To be honest, Miliband is reluctant to make his views known because he's aware they run against the tide of emotion in the country at the moment. The Tories have a poll bounce thanks to Cameron's veto. Labour have...well, Ed Miliband.

A Word To Ed Miliband

I'm very anti-EU. This statement won't be a surprise to anyone who's scanned this blog or my Twitter feed. In fact, I'm quite boring on the issue. However, that isn't the point of this post. It isn't really about the essence of the debate last night which led to the public being denied a referendum on our continued EU membership. I could go on and on about David Cameron's heavy-handed tactics when it came to his backbenchers or Nick Clegg's support for a project rapidly going down the toilet but I want to focus on our worthy leader of the opposition: Mr Ed Miliband.

From the moment the result of the vote was announced last night, Miliband - there's no other way to say it - gloated about the fact that David Cameron couldn't control his backbenchers. He gloated. He believes that politicians should serve a party leader and not their constituents. His words, quoted by the Telegraph, were: "The problem with the Prime Minister is that he's spent the last six years putting his party interests before the national interest." Who is Miliband to say what's in the national interest when he just denied the people a say in their own destiny? When asked why he opposed a referendum he said, "At this time of all times for Britain to be looking inwards and renegotiating whether we're in Europe or outside Europe would be the wrong step." In Miliband's opinion it would be the wrong step. But last night wasn't about the opinion of the political class in this country. It was about the wider public being offered the chance to have a say in where a huge proportion of their money goes.

What David Cameron did on the referendum issue was unforgivable. But I'd argue that what Ed Miliband did was worse. Miliband seems pleased that the electorate has been denied a voice. Something in me recoiled from him last night. It's one thing to have a viewpoint on an issue which perhaps contradicts the popular consensus: it's quite another to deny those people a voice because you know what the outcome will be. I am sick of politicians believing they know what's best for us. If that was the case then they could have allowed this issue to go to a referendum and would have been able to convince us that being in the EU is good for our economy and stability. They knew they couldn't prove such an outlandish theory so they blocked us. All three parties stood in a row and told the people to get lost.

Ed Miliband has no hope of winning an election while he so mockingly ignores the will of the people. He's scored a few political points against David Cameron. I hope he's content with that because I have the distinct feeling that's all he'll gain in the next five years.

Striking Things About Barnsley

I became rather fascinated by the by-election in Barnsley last night, as it became clear the order wasn't going to be as clear cut as usual. I decided to stay up and see it through, only to find the Lib Dems sliding down to 6th and UKIP taking 2nd place. It was astonishing really, especially to be following the excitement as I was on Twitter. Social media might have a lot to answer for, but it could definitely be used as a tool to reignite interest in politics.

Anyway, Labour took a vast majority of votes and Dan Jarvis is now the MP for Barnsley Central. I have great respect for the man. I read an interview with him the other day and he seems to be one of the most down to earth, no-nonsense people in politics. As an ex-soldier he has first hand experience of our military operations, something which could be very valuable should Labour return to power. However, although he was the favourite, there are some interesting points to make about the Barnsley by-election.

1. The seat was certainly a safe Labour seat to start with. However, Eric Illsley has been imprisoned for his expenses. You would expect this to put a dent in the majority but, percentage wise, Dan Javis dramatically increased Labour's vote share from 47% to 60%. However, lower turnout has to take some responsibility for this.
2. The turnout was 'abysmal' as Nick Clegg said in an interview earlier. Yes, it was. At 36.5% it was down by 20% on the General Election. Now, the very fact that Clegg drew attention to the turnout suggests that he doesn't believe the Lib Dem's demolition in the by-election was significant. However, I would then wonder, if he places so little stock in turnouts of around 36%, why did he fight so hard against a threshold of 40% on the upcoming AV Referendum?
3. UKIP took second. I don't think it should be underestimated how significant this is for the party. All right, the vote share was only 12%, but that's still well above the 8% the Tories got. Forget the implications for the Coalition, this is an excellent result for a fringe party with excellent credentials.
4. The Tories and Lib Dems came in third and sixth respectively. Of course, this could be taken as the natural reaction to the cuts, and probably will be by most people within Downing Street. It's also one small area, which was always going to stay Labour. However, it's the vote share that's concerning. Both the Tories and Lib Dems scored 17.3% at the General Election. In the case of the Lib Dems, this has dropped to 4.1%. They lost their deposit for that terrible performance. Evidently, Labour have increased their share by taking votes, primarily from the Lib Dems I would think. And it's a sure bet that some Tories decided to vote UKIP, probably exercising their right to a worthy vote in a race they knew they couldn't expect to win. However, what about all those people that stayed home? It seems to me, on looking at the figures, that only a core of people fell compelled to go out and defend the Coalition. If this trend is repeated at the next General Election it could be that we've helped create even more of an apathy towards the British political system than we had only a year ago.

Government Aim To Make Philanthropy Pay

This enlightening article from The Telegraph reveals new philanthropic plans in development by the coalition. Potentially, every time you use a bank card or take money from your bank account you will be asked to make a charitable donation. Pin machines will be forced to ask you whether you want to 'round up the pound' and give the surplus to charity. It's all part of the effort to create the 'Big Society' and won't we all feel better for it?

Well, no. Not really.

I am a fairly philanthropic person myself. I drop money into boxes when I have change to hand and occasionally give money online. I try to be well-informed about events and organisations and in the new year I'm considering volunteering for one of several deserving causes (I hasten to point out that this is a personal choice and not one encouraged in any way, shape or form by Mr Cameron and his shabby ensemble). What I detest are the charitable organisations who approach you in the street with their clipboards aloft, determined to cajole you into making a monthly payment to the charity of their choice. This will be a similar scheme on a giant scale.

I can see it having one major repercussion. In my eyes, poor innocent cashiers will take the brunt of any irritation stemming from this question. The less refined amongst us will look up from the machine and make a smart and scathing remark. Nobody likes being told what to do and the pressure is always on when those machines ask you a question you want to say no to. In restaurants when they ask you whether you want to leave a tip (and then charge you the 'standard' tipping price) there is always the knowledge that the server can see you pressing the red button. Will this persuade people to give money they don't want to (and in some cases can't afford to)?

You can't tell people what they should do with their income. Alright, the official argument will be that this is merely encouragement but many people will feel pressured and annoyed by this move should it be put into practice. They will see it as a government ploy to make up with donations the amount they are cutting in the charitable budget. Personally, I think we are a selfish bunch of people. We'll throw money at a charity in order to alleviate any guilt but we won't volunteer at a soup kitchen or deliver food to the elderly. As the article points out, how does this scheme make that situation any better?

We're a fragmented country. Some of what David Cameron is attempting to do I admire. Encouraging those dependant on welfare is good in theory, as is repealing the Human Rights Act (if he ever gets around to it). However, most of his decisions aren't based on a genuine regard for the people of this country. He's trying to save money.

This is simply another one of those tricks. Unfortunately, if it passes into common usage it will be one of those things which never goes away. After all, the public can't begrudge a little more of their money being given to charity surely?

I think if they take much more then it will become a huge issue.

Students Have Lost Any Public Support They Had

The scenes of protest and destruction in London last night by my fellow students makes me feel ashamed to be honest. Yes, they were angry (and justifiably so) but there is clear evidence to suggest some people attended the march with the specific intention of causing trouble. After all, who routinely carries around baubles filled with paint for protection? What yesterday will be remembered for is not the travesty of the fees rise as it should have been. No, it will be the image of Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall looking shocked as their Rolls Royce is attacked by rioters.

At the moment we don't know how many of the protesters were students and how many were thugs looking for a fight. But that won't alter the public perception that we have thrown our toys out of the pram in the most idiotic fashion. If we are the next generation and the future of our country then it's a worrying measure of our intellect that we resort to violence to illustrate our points.

Public support towards students has been thin over the last few weeks as frustrations have mounted. It was clear a while ago that the vote was going to go the Coalition's way. Many members of the public see students as an over-privileged work-shy collective who don't want to pay for their own education. Unfortunately, I agree with them to an extent. Some people expect a free education because their parents had a free education. This ignores public debt, an increase in the number of people going to university and the fate of many graduates in so-called 'softer' subjects. However, the majority of students seem willing to pay fees but aren't happy about the cap trebling in this manner. A lot of the anger is based on the Liberal Democrat pledge. If they hadn't signed that piece of paper these protests would've been a lot more controllable and muted.

Whatever the arguments for and against the fees rise, they've ceased to matter now. We've actually given the Coalition their strongest weapon yet: why should we be allowed to go to university when our reaction to something we don't like is to attack the heir to the throne? The Royal Family are not part of our political system. They deliberately stay out of it and as such they did not deserve to be attacked in that manner.

The Council House Debate

The plans to offer fixed-term tenancies for council houses are coming into force as from today. This will ensure, as Grant Shapps has just so eloquently orated on Radio 2, that families who no longer need council housing can be moved to make way for those who do. When put in those simple terms it seems a fair decision, but that masks several uncomfortable truths about the situation.

Firstly, as several of Jeremy Vine's listeners pointed out, it runs the risk of creating slum areas. People are moved into a council house and know that they may very well be asked to leave in a few years: what is the point in them taking any pride in their 'home' at all? It won't be a home in the true sense of the word; more like a temporary lay-by until people are able to move on. What you'll end up with are a collective of transient families moving in and then moving out, and then you have the staples of society who are simply unable to move. These proposals leave them residing in slum areas where there is no notion of community or pride.

The idea that people should relinquish council houses to those in need are good in theory. For example, who would deny the right of a family who have suffered from the recession a short-term haven in the form of a council tenancy? And I'm not denying that living off the state has become a persistent problem in our society. Experience has taught certain groups that if they want an easy life they can claim benefits, have children and get a council house. Some of the measures the Coalition are bringing in aim to attack those groups (though, personally, I think it's a mindset rooted deeper than the Government can probe) but that doesn't combat the current shortage of council properties.

Should someone have a 'home for life' subsidised by the state? Well, the arbitrary figures the Government may employ for deciding the threshold could suggest otherwise. If someone lives in a council house close to a city centre, for instance, then the chances are they will be priced out of either buying a property nearby or privately renting. Their financial circumstances may have changed but all this does is separate them from the area they've grown accustomed to and can require the upheaval of children from school and the like.

As with most Coalition decisions, this one demonstrates a blatant disregard for the individual. Let's take my grandmother as an example. She moved into her council house on Eastmoor Estate in Wakefield when my mum was nine months old, having put herself and her husband on the waiting list as soon as she found out she was pregnant. The result was a two-bedroomed house with a mid-sized rear garden and a pit at the bottom of the street. Over the years my grandfather made various improvements to the garden and they made it into a home. When she married my mum moved out and in 1986 my grandfather died. The house had suddenly become too big for my grandmother judging by the Coalition guidelines but she could she be expected to move into a small flat, move away from the house where she'd spent her marriage? She lived there for a further twenty years until her health deteriorated and she moved into sheltered accommodation. I firmly think that if she had been forced to move earlier her health would've suffered and the community she'd built on that estate would've been shattered.

There needs to be a long-term solution to the shortage of council housing but forcing people to move when they aren't ready or able is just plain cruel. Why not expand the number of council houses on the books, considering the number of empty properties lying around? However, this would be against the Tory ideology, wouldn't it? I wonder if Labour have any suggestions.

Iain Duncan Smith - Ignoring the Human Element

Iain Duncan Smith has irritated me today - and probably half the nation.

His comments, harking back to Norman Tebbit thirty years ago, have suggested that the next step in his battle to wean people off welfare will be to send them to jobs potentially several hours away. This is an excerpt from the interview:

There are jobs. They may not be absolutely in the town that you are living in. That's the key point. They may be in a neighbouring town... My point was, you need to recognise that the jobs don't always come to you, sometimes you need to go to the job.

Now, on principle, I agree.

I spent six months commuting from Darlington to Stockton by train with a significant walk to the station at the Darlington end. I was temping whilst studying for my MA in Middlesbrough and was happy to land any job to keep me going. I started work at 8:30 and routinely set off before 7:00. It was a tad cold on those winter mornings but I had my Ipod and a book for the train. It worked out fine, even on the two nights of the week when I had to continue my day onto Middlesbrough and study until 9:00 PM. I think I complained of exhaustion on more than one occasion but I got through it because I knew it wasn't forever.

Perhaps that's the point. I'm not sure if IDS expects such a working situation to be long-term but your life could start to suffer as a result if he does. I'm lucky. I didn't have childcare arrangements or a mortgage (I paid my rent upfront at the beginning of the year). My household bills, my food and my transport costs were all I had to worry about. However, I was lucky.

If you're in a situation where both halves of a couple have a lengthy commute to work then surely extra childcare comes into play? This is notoriously expensive, particularly after-hours. Some people are lucky enough to have family to help out: many haven't. There is no guarantee that when travel costs and extra items such as childcare are deducted from the commuter's wage that they will actually be better off than they were on benefits. Bear in mind that train fares are set to soar and bus subsidies have been cut.

Admittedly, we're in a sticky situation. There is no quick fix and individuals are going to have to make difficult decisions for some time to come. One of these may be commuting to the next town until things settle down. But how long can families sustain this? More importantly, will there be jobs to go to?

It does come down to a desire to take control of your own life and finances. I am wholeheartedly in favour of this. However, the point where the politicians are failing at the moment is when they persist in lumping the idle scroungers together in one category with the people who have genuinely assessed these options.

There needs to be a human element considered when politicians make these sweeping statements. As we've seen with George Osbourne in the last few days, the human element is usually sadly lacking from their consideration.