On the “reduction of child poverty” front. Which bill(s), relative or absolute poverty and on what evidence?

Re the banks: Are you kidding? The regulation in place was a horrendous and largely useless box ticking exercise but it was by no measure “light touch”.

Re Iraq: Dear Tony lied and knew damn well that he was doing so. Intentions do matter.

The substance of my previous comment was not that it’s “hard to summarise any issue in a way that is entirely impartial” but that the way it was set out was a quite deliberate hatchet job. As I said before, I have no great regard for Cameron or any parliamentarians bar a very few but the way you frame a debate makes a great impact:

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

That sounds good – a project for the next few months, perhaps?

So for example, which bills and which votes would relate to ‘civil liberties’ for example… and so on. And then we can start rating MPs once we know which bills need to be included in the questionnaire.

Does this make sense (I’ve not had much sleep)

Yes. But there are a lot!

The trick is to first establish the criteria… and then list all the votes that relate to the criteria.

So for example, which bills and which votes would relate to ‘civil liberties’ for example… and so on. And then we can start rating MPs once we know which bills need to be included in the questionnaire.

Does this make sense (I’ve not had much sleep)

Quickfire round:

2 – Blears does have principles beyond just getting elected. I disagree with them, but it is a perfectly reasonable political strategy for actually getting stuff done to be publicly loyal to the leadership and keep disagreements private.

5 – yes, fair point.

8 – agree with a lot of that, but do read Hopi Sen’s post for the counter-argument.

14 – n.b. if you want to criticise a politician, calling her a ‘fishwife’ says more about you than them.

17 – generally agree, but I don’t like the distinction between ‘moral issues’ such as foreign policy, and issues like welfare reform and child poverty.

18 – yes and yes

23 – glad you liked it. agree completely about council housing being a moral issue.

28 – you’re right that it’s hard to summarise any issue in a way that is entirely impartial, I was copying the style of TheyWorkForYou. But on the specific, the measures that Hazel Blears voted for did reduce child poverty, and David Cameron voted against them, regardless of why he did so. After all, our government thought that light touch regulation of the bankers would help make us all richer and that invading Iraq would get rid of weapons of mass destruction, it’s worth holding people to account for the results of their actions, not just their intentions, right?

29 – for all its flaws, TWFY provides useful info to help people hold their reps to account. Would indeed be good if it were combined with other kinds of information, of course.

I’m a bit surprised that people on Liberal Conspiracy haven’t picked this up. A liberal-left alliance will need to base itself around holding our representatives to account for their actions, getting them away from spin and making them align their actions with clear principles. Monbiot’s main point is important and voting record indicators are a tangent to that issue.

Frame the question differently and you would have Hazel voting strongly for “micturating money up against the wall”. A reasonable take on it? No, but no better than the other way round.

Hazel Blears is a Reagan/Thatcher tax rebel and her foreign policy is nothing but violent paranoia. She’s a flaming neo-con who would feel right at home with the Project for a New American Century, and the only real mystery about her is her British passport.

This is a small mystery, but still worth solving, or at least disappearing, by seizing her passport and dropping her on one of those small boats from Senegal that are always trying to land in Las Canares.

After four or five weeks of sunshine in an open boat, Hazel wouldn’t even be white, and without that cornerstone of her identity, the rest of it would dissolve like smoke.

An image no-one needs.

Newmania @1, which Lib Dems are you talking about here?? I spend much of my mental energy hating what New Labour have done in the same way an older generation hated what the Tories did. And I’m not aware of any Lib Dems hereabouts who are that much softer than me.

“I expect Monbiot’s experience of growing up or living in a run down council estate in Salford somewhat limited. Blear’s has an intuitive understanding of the concerns of the working class, which over the next few years is mostly going to be focused on putting food on the table, clothes on the childrens’ backs and a roof over their heads. Monbiot’s idealism is wonderful if one can afford it.”

Whatever legitimate point might be made here, this is extremely patronising to working-class people.

Working people can and do exhibit idealism, often a great deal more than those who could afford it.

And not wishing to visit mass death on the people of another country is not an act of idealistic frippery.

Iraq also has a working class, by the way, one which Blears did her part to ensure will have serious difficulty getting food on their tables, clothes for their children and roofs over their heads for many, many years to come. Concern for the fate of Iraqis and the responsibilty that we – and you – have for them is not some middle class hobby, and nor is concern for the other issues Monbiot mentioned.

That’s not what I remember.

The derision was to the way she failed to promote the good things in it and undermined support for them with her partisan approach.

Remember it was not ‘her’ white paper – it was a cross-party effort which she then had responsibility to push through as minister. It obviously conflicted with her partisan interests so she did her best to put a brave face on her duties while discouraging at every turn any implementation.

Why would you say such a blatantly untrue thing?

Only if the improved funding has proportionately improved public services.

Hey, I was being charitable.

Actually, I suspect that increases in health/education funding probably have led to reasonably good improvements (certainly in health). The bigger problem is big increases in spending on things that nobody really wants.

Blear’s has an intuitive understanding of the concerns of the working class, which over the next few years is mostly going to be focused on putting food on the table, clothes on the childrens’ backs and a roof over their heads.

Rather than databases covering our travel, communications, and occasions on which we prove our identity, detention without charge etc… …so why are they the headline policies?

Improvements in funding for public services have been valuable,

Only if the improved funding has proportionately improved public services.

On an entirely unrelated note: isn’t John MacDonnell awesome? And isn’t it a pity that Robin Cook isn’t still with us?

1) I think we need a more sophisticated tool to rate MPs on the basis of their voting records.

The world awaits someone to set one up and fund its operation. In fact, all or most of MySociety’s stuff is open source, so you can quite easily submit modifications to it if you think that it could be improved (or organise other people to do so).

Back to the original post: “But David Cameron is much worse” isn’t a ringing endorsement of Hazel Blears, which donpaskini has carefully avoided making. We all know that David Cameron is promoting policies we don’t like and voting against the ones that we do. We know this because he’s a Tory and that’s what Tories do. If the best defence of Hazel Blears is that, on at least some issues, she’s to the left of the leader of the Conservative Party then I don’t see much to recommend her.

As James pointed out, the strongest part of Monbiot’s piece was on those votes where clear moral issues – support of dictatorships, covering up corruption cases – were being voted on. On many of the other policies (e.g. welfare reform, reduction in child poverty) the votes were more about means than ends and it would be hard to deduce a person’s moral character or ‘courage’ from whether or not they support welfare reform in quite the same way as it is over whether they support the Uzbek government or sanction bribery.

At best, Blears (and most of the current cabinet) can be said to have backed some decent policies during their time in office. Improvements in funding for public services have been valuable, and the first-term New Labour government may well go down in history as one of the best of the 20th century. From then on, it has all been downhill and there has been a conspicious lack of those virtues of courage that Hazel Blears seems to think that she possesses in such quantities. I don’t see anything courageous in backing a handful of broadly left-wing policies whilst simultaneously going ahead with a considerable number of right-wing authoritarian ones. To claim that this is courageous in any way is an insult to people who have shown real courage in battling some of the things that Blears & co. seem perfectly happy to support.

Blears frequently says that she is accountable and journalists aren’t. What she means by that is that she is elected and journalists aren’t. However Blears is hopeless at accounting for her policies, which is what Monbiot is driving at, I think. The invasion of Iraq is only the worst example of a general trend: actions and policies for which the justifications are weak, confused, contradictory or are based on assumptions and assertions that turn out to be untrue. As Monbiot says in his article, there is a consistency in Blears voting record but it is unclear what principles that is based on (as many of the stated justifications are refutable or have been proved to be false). I don’t think that tweaking the indicators of voting record is really relevant: the problem is a corrosive political culture where politicians are unable to account for their actions (and are able to survive without being held to accont).

Why can’t various bills that get passed be pigeonholed in to categories on publicwhip upon entry to the site, and therefore automatically tally each MPs record per subject?

Are you taking the piss?

Blears wouldn’t know what working-class was if it hit her in the face with a 19″ penis!

The woman is a moron!

Her ‘working-class supporting the BNP’ bullshit was a made up survey which used 43 interviewees! Just because she “represents” Salford does not make her any better knowing what working-class people want. I wish that there were 100% more profanity and expletives in the English language just for her.

I think the best way of describing Blears was a mate of mine from Salford – who, funnily enough, is called Charlie – he said “She is a more of a fish-wife than a fish-wife, she is better listening to gossip than intellectual conversation, she is a cricket fan while watching lawn darts and wondering when the bowler is going to throw the ball”.

Hazel Blears in the cabinet is like having a goose trying to be a hummingbird.

“Leaves Blears pretty thoroughly and decisively pwned. Only a firm nationalist could say that supporting Uzbek tyrants and thwarting justice over shady deals don’t matter was reprehensible & even a firm nationalist would realise that the craven Atlanticism of allowing America do as it would with British citizens detained without trial in Guantanamo was a bad call.”

Still good?