An Elected Mayor in Wakefield? No!

On Thursday 3rd May voters in Wakefield (and several other cities across the UK) will go to the polls to decide whether they want an elected mayor in their area. After some slight wavering on my original verdict of 'No' I've come to the conclusion that I was certainly right in the first place. My instincts told me an elected mayor would be a pointless and expensive waste of time in Wakefield and I'd like to explain why. All figures are from the 20th April edition of the Wakefield Express.

• We have no idea of the powers an elected mayor would have. No specifics have been given about the powers that will be given to an elected mayor except that they won't be as extensive as Boris Johnson's powers in London. How can we be expected to vote to give powers up when we have no idea what powers we'll be surrendering to one human being?
• The salary will be extortionate. At the moment the council leader's salary is about £45k. An elected mayor would be paid between £60k and £70. In addition, every cabinet member the mayor chooses to appoint would cost £13k each. Doesn't seem to me like this is austerity in action.
• It'll be Labour or Labour round here. The council leader elected by councillors is Peter Box. An elected mayor will no doubt end up being Peter Box. The notion of choice that a mayoral election will bring means very little around here so why bother paying more money for the same man?
• Wakefield has no one distinct community. We're not called 'Wakefield and the Five Towns' for nothing. Normanton, Pontefract, Featherstone, Castleford and Knottingley all come under the remit but my fear would be that an elected mayor would focus on the central belt. I'm not the only central resident to have had enough of on-going development work that doesn't seem to have a coherent purpose. I certainly don't want more of it. 
• The mayor could not be removed mid-term. At least the council leader can be removed during their term by the councillors. But if the mayor is incompetent or worse then we have to wait four years to get rid. Not good. 
• What'll be the point of elected councillors? As far as I'm concerned, if we have an elected mayor everybody else that we vote in is redundant because the majority of decisions will be made by one individual. I don't see that as wholly democratic. 
• I don't want one person in charge. I think this is what it comes down to for me. I believe democracy can only be obtained through dialogue and compromise. I don't think we'll get that with an elected mayor.

I know a lot of people will disagree with me but these are my thoughts and these are the reasons I'll be voting 'No' on 3rd May when I'm asked whether Wakefield should have an elected mayor. 

On Soft Courses

Education policy is perhaps the only area of Coalition policy that I don't have a real problem with. I went to secondary school during the Labour years (1998-2003) and noticed as it became more target-driven and, actually, irritating and pointless. I don't know the figures for my school in relation to vocational courses but we were a bit rough and I'm willing to bet people were pushed towards anything that would help the school look better. Consequently, I think that Michael Gove's plan to stop most vocational courses being equated to GCSEs is more than fair. This scheme has bred a culture of 'easy' courses, often making vocational studies look silly along the way. It demeans the truly worthwhile vocational courses that I remember from way back - care of children, care of the elderly and your trades such as electrician, plasterer and plumber. Those are worthy courses which will actually help a pupil in their chosen career. Many of the new ones are little more than pieces of paper.

A quote in this Telegraph article today from Christine Blower, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers irritated me. She says, “It should not be up to the Government to decide which exams are of more merit than others. This is something which should be assessed by major stakeholders such as the teaching profession and awarding bodies." What, you mean it should be assessed by the people who stand to gain from making the teaching and examining professions look better than they actually are? Asking teachers to make a verdict on vocational qualifications is like asking a member of a criminal gang to comment on the activities of the whole. The government may actually be the most objective 'stakeholder' in this situation: they want students to come out with qualifications which will help them get a job. It could be said that the teaching profession and awarding bodies simply want the best for their own members. And who cares about the children?

We cannot carry on congratulating people for failure. Students should be pushed to their limits and, for that matter, teachers and awarding bodies should be too. It's fine and dandy wanting an 'easy' life but then you end up in the situation we're in now - we have a country that's practically useless and we're slipping down international league tables faster than you could imagine. Our education system is the most logical place to start fixing this. You can't help children once they're through it. 

Spartacus Report

I know there's a lot going around about this today but it deserves to be shouted from the rooftops - and there's always the hope that one more person may be informed about the illogical and foolhardy changes to DLA by reading this post.

A new report, Responsible Reform: A Report on the Proposed Changes to Disability Living Allowance, has highlighted many of the failings that the government made during their consultation procedure about the change from DLA to Personal Independence Payments (PIP). Analysing the SAME responses that the government did (obtained via a Freedom of Information request), the report plainly shows how this information was misrepresented by the government in their haste to approve the flawed changes. The report can be accessed here (and the executive summary is digestible and very revealing) while the press release can be found here. 

I'd just like to make a few points. Without social media this campaign would've been impossible. Whether by design or error, the government has targeted their most detrimental reforms at the most vulnerable group in society and those least able to mobilise themselves into action. Without the dedication of Sue Marsh and other online campaigners, the battle would've been lost long ago. As it stands, we still have a chance to make the country listen.

But, first, the scrounger rhetoric HAS TO stop. Yes, I agree there is a sense of entitlement in some parts of society, the I want culture whereby people believe that because somebody else has something they deserve it too. However, we are not attacking that culture with the changes from DLA to PIP. Do you know what we're doing? We are attacking the I need sector instead. We are attacking the people who rely on DLA to survive. We are replacing a benefit that helps with one that tries desperately to get out of helping. The changes have been badly considered and misrepresented by the government AND the Labour Opposition.

Finally, you might think this has nothing to do with you because it doesn't affect you now. Well, it might one day. The chances are high that it'll affect you or someone you know at some point. No one chooses to be disabled and by making life more difficult for those people we are condemning them to a life of worry, misery and pain. Is this acceptable?

Please email your MP and tweet #spartacusreport as much as you can today. It needs to be done and the report needs to be seen.  

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.

Leave Wakefield Westgate Alone

This blog runs the risk of becoming a diatribe against the great British railways. I've previously written about my loathing of HS2 and the problems that could arise from closing small ticket offices. Today, as George Osborne announces money going towards rail infrastructure projects in Yorkshire, I have a new gripe.

£6.6 million is being given to Wakefield Westgate station to rebuild and refurbish. You'd think I'd be happy. I use the station several times a week, after all, and theoretically it should be in Wakefield's best interests to have it rebuilt. However, I don't believe it is.

The idea to 'move' the station down a few yards was mooted years ago. It was accepted that it would finally be done and then the refurbishment plan disappeared from the Network Rail website and everything went quiet. For the last few years Wakefield Council have been insisting that the work would happen while the transport authorities have just blanked the idea. If the original suggestions are being used then (in my understanding) the station would be moved along a bit. For Wakefield people, it would be moved slightly further away from Westgate bridge and towards the Balne Lane bridge. This was fine when the plans were first suggested. But I see one major flaw here: they've since built a hideously ugly multi-storey car park near this area. They can't just pick it up and move it so does that hamper plans? These are the details already announced by the local paper: "New shops, a travel centre, a First Class lounge, a customer reception and information screens will be developed at a brand new station building. It will be built next to the multi-storey car park which opened last year to provide better access." See my next point.


Secondly, I'm happy to admit that Wakefield Westgate is not a hub station. The majority of people who get on and off the train don't wait around for a connecting service. It's a destination, that's all. As such, I believe the station as it is can cope. You don't have too many people hanging around and the services it's got are sufficient: cash machines, shop, cafe, toilets ticket offices, information desk along with first class and regular waiting rooms. It might be a little scruffy but it's hardly in the direst of circumstances. I wonder if the powers that be are merely trying to make the station look more attractive to businessmen travelling through from Leeds. Quite an expensive vanity project if they are.

Finally, there is the most important point. Wakefield has two railway stations and this one isn't the one desperate for a bit of TLC. Wakefield Kirkgate has been the scene of at least one serious sexual assault in recent history and is an unmanned eyesore. It does, however, offer a direct Grand Central service to London. The problem is, no one will dare risk going via that station because of the dangers. Wakefield Kirkgate is the closer station to the new Hepworth Gallery and refurbishment of that could easily help visitors to the attraction. The waterfront area nearby has also been heavily redeveloped recent years: why not build a station to go with the new prosperity of the area?

So, you see, I'm not saying no money for Wakefield's rail system. I'm just asking for it to be put in the right place and to help local people in favour of anyone else.

The Future State of Welfare with John Humphrys - Complaint Response

Like many other people I was incensed by the above programme. It was a shoddy piece of journalism, focused on furthering the government agenda and not on protecting the claimants in this country. I dread to imagine how much more difficult the lives of disability claimants have become since the programme aired, especially those without visible disabilities. I shot off a complaint to the BBC as soon as I'd watched the programme and today I received a response. It may be a stock one sent to dozens of complainants with a few alterations but I'll share it anyway:

Dear Miss Brown


Reference CAS-1069807-F832D5


Thanks for contacting us regarding BBC Two’s ‘The Future State Of Welfare With John Humphrys’ on 27 October.


I understand you felt the programme was biased against the welfare state.


We believe that 'The Future State of Welfare' was a balanced look at the benefits debate in the UK. The programme dealt with a difficult and important subject - and the strong opinions held about the issues raised by the current proposals for reform. The impact of current policy and proposed reforms was shown through John's interviews with individuals who have experience of the system both here in the UK and in the USA. The programme featured interviews with various individuals who claim different types of benefits, and gave them an opportunity to set out their views on the proposed reforms. John conducted these interviews with sympathy and sensitivity and enabling those affected to show how they felt the proposed reforms would impact upon their individual situations.


With regard to recent changes to incapacity benefit and the assessment of recipients to determine whether or not they are entitled to receive the benefit, the programme made it clear that requests to film the assessment process had been refused. However, the programme acknowledged that the process of assessment could be distressing for those involved. When John spoke with Yvonne Power, who ultimately won her post-assessment appeal and was granted ESA, she clearly outlined how upsetting she had found the assessment process.


Both the BBC and John Humphrys consider the programme to be a success - it challenged preconceptions while remaining a balanced and accurate analysis of both emerging policy and public opinion in this highly contentious area.


Nevertheless, we’ve registered your comments on our audience log for the benefit of programme makers, commissioning executives, and senior management within the BBC. The audience logs are important documents that can help shape future decisions and they ensure that your points, and all other comments we receive, are made available to BBC staff across the Corporation.


Thanks again for contacting us.


Kind Regards


Stuart Webb
BBC Complaints 

In my complaint I pointed out that figures on the number of Atos Healthcare judgements overturned on appeal were not highlighted. I judged this to be a vital omission because inclusion would've highlighted the illegitimacy of the system currently reassessing people for benefits. Wouldn't it have been in the public interest for the BBC to point out that these appeals are costly and the correct judgement should be reached in the first instance and not the second? Also, a few case-studies of people sent for these hideous assessments would not have gone amiss.


The BBC will maintain they're right until Chairman of the BBC Trust and former Chairman of the Conservative Party, Chris Patten, tells them otherwise. Welcome to the new legitimate victimisation of our vulnerable citizens.

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.