Big Society: what’s in a name?
Big Society is a completely vacuous construction that doesn’t mean anything in particular, according to some commentators, anyway.
Well, either that, or a mark of Cameron’s capitulation to the quasi-Marxist ideology of ‘leftist subversive’ Saul Alinsky. Or maybe it is a fancy pants name in which to dress up free market fundamentalist public spending cuts.
Or perhaps it is a reassertion of the best mutualist traditions of Fabian-inspired British Labourism. I guess until the prime minister spells out the content of his passion, it is a case of ‘you volunteers your time and you takes your pick’.
continue reading… »
Private companies could take over libraries
The Independent has learnt that LSSI, an American firm which manages 13 public libraries across the US, has set itself a target to manage libraries in eight British local authorities by the end of the year and to capture 15 per cent of the market within five years. Libraries could house coffee shops and bring in self-scanning technology.
Ministers say they are relaxed about having “a Starbucks in the library” if that keeps libraries open. Nearly 400 are threatened with closure, a figure that could rise to 800 by the end of the year.
…
Roberta Stevens, president of the American Library Association, said that private-sector firms “cannot guarantee the same level of transparency. Local authorities have to be absolutely clear on the terms of contract when entering into these deals. British taxpayers risk losing their own tax pounds to American firms.”
The last quote is the most worrying.
On balance I have no problems with libraries being kept open, if the only way to do that is by bringing in outside money.
But firstly, its not clear that is the only fate for libraries now.
Secondly, these companies would inevitably try to recoup their investment by charging higher for services – further limiting access to the poorest in society.
Lastly – its not even clear this is a successful business model. Borders, which attempted this across the USA and UK, is going bust. Will councils step in to save libraries if the companies managing them go bust?
(via @FalseEcon)
Why I’m opposed to Compass opening its membership beyond Labour
The left-wing pressure group Compass is currently asking members whether they should open up membership to beyond the Labour party. Non-aligned people can already join (I joined Compass way before the party) but Greens / Libdems can’t.
The odd thing is that I was initially very much for opening up the membership, and there are strong arguments in favour. But after much consideration I’ll be voting against this measure.
continue reading… »
Fight Back! New book on the winter of protest
In November 2010 opposition to the government’s cuts exploded into direct action, as students stormed the Conservative Party HQ in Millbank.
A month later, Parliament Square itself was occupied, as 30,000 marched while the police protected the House of Commons, and later brutally ‘kettled’ many of the young demonstrators.
Has a new movement been born? One which can even defeat the government?
Fight Back! the book features the best writing, blogs, articles, images and exchanges of two explosive months of action against the government’s programme of cuts and student fees.
Its ‘editorial kettle’ of seven are all under 30 and were all kettled by the police in November and December 2011.
Edited by the journalist Dan Hancox, others on the editorial team are Guy Aitchison, Laurie Penny, Siraj Datoo, Caillean Gallaghar, Aaron Peters and Paul Sagar.
The book brings together 43 contributors of all ages, from a 15-year-old UK Uncut activist to a rebel Lib Dem peer.
Fight Back! is published by openDemocracy’s OurKingdom.
It will be published on 24 March as a book and on Kindle.
It can be downloaded from today as a free e-book with no registration.
From a press release
Labour councils cutting more jobs than Tory?
The Guardian today is running a story today with the headline: Labour councils shed 50% more jobs than Tory areas.
It goes on to say:
Figures appear to bolster coalition claims that Labour councils are making bigger cuts for politically motivated reasons
But immediately below that it states:
Labour councils are shedding on average 50% more posts than Conservative authorities as they deal with funding cuts that significantly outstrip those of their Tory and Liberal Democrat neighbours, the Guardian has found.
So, er, the real reason is that Labour councils budget cuts significantly outstrip that of Tory or Libdem councils.
How exactly does that bolster Conservative claims that Labour councils are making politically motivated decisions?
Just look at the figures. The article states Labour councils on average face 7% budget cuts, while Conservative councils face on average 5% budget cuts.
In percentage terms, that says Labour councils face 40% more budget cuts compared to Conservative councils.
Labour authorities have issued on average 745 job “at-risk” notifications, compared with 498 for Conservative councils. That’s a slightly more 49% notifications but still roughly proportional. Part of that reason will be that Labour manager fewer but much bigger councils in Metropolitan areas – so it’s not comparing like with like.
Furthermore, massive councils like Manchester are facing a 8.8% budget cut, which will inevitably put them on top of the list for job cuts.
In contrast, the article points out that Norfolk (Tory) is cutting 3,000 posts while only facing a 2% drop in spending power, and Nottinghamshire (Tory) is cutting 3,500 job cuts despite facing a relatively small 3% reduction in funding.
And yet the Guardian is running with the headline that its research bolsters Conservative claims. It’s a ludicrous claim.
Update: You can get a better understanding of actual cuts to council base budgets this LGC article (and see the spreadsheet at the bottom).
Update 2: This blogpost by Mark Easton at the BBC maps how poorer Labour councils are facing much bigger cuts than Tory ones. (via @Sarah_Hayward)
How many disabled people are fit for work? Not as much as ministers claim
How many disabled people on benefits are really fit for work? It’s an important question, prompted by a leak to the BBC of the results of a pilot programme published today.
Ministers are claiming that these results show that two thirds of people who get Incapacity Benefit or Income Support on the grounds of incapacity are “able to work.”. But that is entirely the wrong way of looking at it.
continue reading… »
Worrying news for Ken in today’s London poll
A YouGov poll today shows Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson running neck-and-neck.
When asked who they would vote for if the election were to be held tomorrow, Londoners marginally preferred Livingstone (45%), over Johnson (43%). Though it is within the 3% margin of error.
As Shamik Das points out:
Immediately after his election in 2008, Johnson held a 16-point lead over Livingstone, while after the announcement Livingstone would be the Labour candidate in 2012, the lead shrank to nine points; now, there’s nothing to separate them.
YouGov’s polling of London puts Labour at Lab 50% (+13), Tories 34% (-1) and LibDems 9% (-13) since the General election.
The second set of figures point to a worrying trend for Ken Livingstone: at the last election his vote was higher than Labour’s share nationally. Now he is under-performing the party by around 5 points.
In other words, there is a fair amount of resistance amongst Londoners to support Ken Livingstone even if they’re happier with the Labour party under Ed Miliband.
Two points on this.
First, as Adam Bienkov says that personality matters a lot more than political parties in the London Mayoral election, and Ken still needs to do a lot to detoxify his brand, and cannot rely on the cuts alone to get him back into power.
Secondly, Libdems are key. It’s their move to Labour that has primarily shifted the balance of power in London. And yet they seem to be resisting Ken.
A lot of work still needs to be done by Ken’s team to make a break from the past.
Why are we still funding nuclear plants?
Built at a cost of £473 million, it was supposed to churn out a grand total of 560 tons of fuel by the end of its first decade of operation, later this year. So far it has just produced 15 tonnes.
So says Geoffrey Lean in the Telegraph. He points out:
A week ago The Daily Telegraph published a confidential cable from the US embassy calling a controversial plant at Sellafield “one of Her Majesty’s Government’s most embarrassing failures in British industrial history”. Then, within days, ministers said they were minded to build another one like it.
…
Even though the Government wrote off its capital cost, it is still haemorrhaging money. Though the annual loss is kept secret, the cable – passed to this newspaper by WikiLeaks – states that it is “costing taxpayers £90 million a year” It remains, it adds, “a black mark for the entire industry”.
And yet we keep subsidising the nuclear energy industry to the tune of hundreds of millions every year under the argument that clean energy alternatives are just not economically viable.
Lean also points out another danger:
Things would be even worse if the plant were to succeed, because it would then be taking the raw material for bombs out of the closely guarded stores where it is now held and having it transported around the country – or the world – as the fuel was taken to reactors. If terrorists or criminals intercepted a shipment, they could – nuclear physicists say – extract the plutonium and use it to make a bomb capable of destroying much of a major city.
Not just hugely expensive and non-viable, but also highly dangerous.
There isn’t a clear separation between state and private money in the real society
contribution by James Mills
On Saturdays I help run a community football project in West London, around the corner from my old school. It was started eight years ago and is multi-faith, multi-racial and ranges from teenagers to adult men in their thirties. No national or local government edict decided that this should be created.
Nevertheless, the environment for such a scheme to blossom was due to easy access to a public park we use which is maintained and kept by the local council and as long as the local council keep doing so, and there is enough interest, it will keep going.
continue reading… »
The Observer bravely stands up for punishment without trial
There was a very odd piece in Sunday’s Observer, running under the headline MEPs putting child pornographers’ rights ahead of abuse victims, claim campaigners.
The piece, written by veteran home affairs correspondent Jamie Doward, says – as a reported fact in the piece, not as a quote from a pressure group:
The European parliament’s civil liberties, justice and home affairs committee (LIBE) will meet in Strasbourg tomorrow, when it is expected to approve a controversial measure that would compel EU member states to inform publishers of child pornography that their images are to be deleted from the internet or blocked. Child pornographers will also have to be informed of their right to appeal against any removal or blocking
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or RSS feed. You can also get them by email and through our Facebook group.
» The real agenda behind Telegraph’s abortion investigation
» How Scotland Yard monitors prying bloggers and journalists
» When disabled people want to work – employers can hold the back
» Revealed: the reality behind Workfare and why it doesn’t work
» Job snob? No, I’ve got the T-shirt
» Why country-by-country reporting matters to our wellbeing
» If Unions want to become stronger, they need to modernise
» Why work “reforms” in Spain are a warning for workers across Europe
» Five things you need to know about the NHS bill
» Bigger. Fatter. Gypsier. More Racist.
» Laziness levels in Britain getting lazier, wails government
|
62 Comments 15 Comments 23 Comments 8 Comments 24 Comments 19 Comments 16 Comments 83 Comments 203 Comments 85 Comments |
|
LATEST COMMENTS » the a&e charge nurse posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Hannah posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » mr_hopkinson posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Amy Finlayson posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » the a&e charge nurse posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » pagar posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Oliver Conner posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » pjt posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » Lee Griffin posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » JIm posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » BendyGirl posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » Liza Harding posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » rentergirl posted on Workfare - what does the evidence show? » Chaise Guevara posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation » sunny hundal posted on The real agenda behind Telegraph's abortion investigation |
