As the Beijing Olympics looms ever larger on the horizon, I'm beginning to feel a little nauseous. Not because I find the prospect of weeks and weeks of wall-to-wall coverage of sports in itself disturbing. There will be the usual spectacle of torch-lighting and speech-making, of flags and anthems - and the inevitable post-mortems around the poor performance of the British team, no doubt. What causes me increasing angst is the venue.
For the past few days, we have heard (and been prevented from seeing) the stories of brutal repression in Tibet. The demonstrations of a few brave monks have been put down with a ferocity reminiscent of Tienanmen Square. Possibly hundreds have been killed or injured for exercising their basic human rights. The reaction to such abuses? Muted at best. And the anxiety expressed has not been about whether such abuses will continue or escalate or about the fate of the Tibetan people, but rather whether this will affect the Olympic torch's journey to Beijing! Surely someone has skewed priorities?
Don't get me wrong - I'm not a purist when it comes to international relations or indeed the Olympic Games. Who can forget, for example, the ghastly image of the famous rings fluttering next to Nazi swastikas in the Berlin Games of 1936? But isn't it time there was a realistic assessment of how successful the policy of pragmatic engagement has been with the People's Republic? Nixon was probably right to suggest that engagement was better than a Cold War stand off with Mao. But times have changed. Mao is gone and capitalism is taking hold in this vast empire (and I use that word advisedly). Yet the promise that respect for human rights and liberal democracy would be seen riding on the crest of the capitalist wave has simply failed to materialise. Instead we see naked power backed by increasing wealth beginning to flex its muscles on the world stage. Is it enough to hope for the best whilst China still occupies, not only Tibet, but also parts of India?
The history of the last century have shown us the importance of dialogue and engagement. But dialogue is only real when both parties speak and both listen. In dialogue, the traffic must be two-way as must the movement. If the purpose of dialogue is increased understanding and the transformation of a relationship, then the willingness and commitment to change must reside in all the parties.
Relations with China show the limitations of dialogue. I cannot see much willingness on the part of the Chinese Communist Party either to change or even much to listen to the concerns of the International Community. It still executes more people each year than the rest of the world put together. It still represses religious movements and severely curtails political and cultural freedoms. It seems the only concession the Party has afforded its people is the freedom to make money!
Of course, I'll watch the Beijing Games like everyone else. But placing the high ideals of fairness and integrity next to the symbols of oppression and fear will still cause my stomach to churn!
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
Labour's top 50 achievements since being elected in 1997
Our top 50 achievements since being elected in 1997
1. Longest period of sustained low inflation since the 60s.
2. Low mortgage rates.
3. Introduced the National Minimum Wage and raised it to £5.52.
4. Over 14,000 more police in England and Wales.
5. Cut overall crime by 32 per cent.
6. Record levels of literacy and numeracy in schools.
7. Young people achieving some of the best ever results at 14, 16, and 18.
8. Funding for every pupil in England has doubled.
9. Employment is at its highest level ever.
10. Written off up to 100 per cent of debt owed by poorest countries.
11. 85,000 more nurses.
12. 32,000 more doctors.
13. Brought back matrons to hospital wards.
14. Devolved power to the Scottish Parliament.
15. Devolved power to the Welsh Assembly.
16. Dads now get paternity leave of 2 weeks for the first time.
17. NHS Direct offering free convenient patient advice.
18. Gift aid was worth £828 million to charities last year.
19. Restored city-wide government to London.
20. Record number of students in higher education.
21. Child benefit up 26 per cent since 1997.
22. Delivered 2,200 Sure Start Children’s Centres.
23. Introduced the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
24. £200 winter fuel payment to pensioners & up to £300 for over-80s.
25. On course to exceed our Kyoto target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
26. Restored devolved government to Northern Ireland.
27. Over 36,000 more teachers in England and 274,000 more support staff and teaching assistants.
28. All full time workers now have a right to 24 days paid holiday.
29. A million pensioners lifted out of poverty.30. 600,000 children lifted out of relative poverty.
31. Introduced child tax credit giving more money to parents.
32. Scrapped Section 28 and introduced Civil Partnerships.
33. Brought over 1 million social homes up to standard.
34. Inpatient waiting lists down by over half a million since 1997.
35. Banned fox hunting.
36. Cleanest rivers, beaches, drinking water and air since before the industrial revolution.
37. Free TV licences for over-75s.38. Banned fur farming and the testing of cosmetics on animals.
39. Free breast cancer screening for all women aged between 50-70.
40. Free off peak local bus travel for over-60s.
41. New Deal - helped over 1.8 million people into work.
42. Over 3 million child trust funds have been started.
43. Free eye test for over 60s.
44. More than doubled the number of apprenticeships.
45. Free entry to national museums and galleries.
46. Overseas aid budget more than doubled.
47. Heart disease deaths down by 150,000 and cancer deaths down by 50,000.
48. Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75 per cent.
49. Free nursery places for every three and four-year-olds.
50. Free fruit for most four to six-year-olds at school.
Comment on http://www.labour.org.uk/top_50_achievements
1. Longest period of sustained low inflation since the 60s.
2. Low mortgage rates.
3. Introduced the National Minimum Wage and raised it to £5.52.
4. Over 14,000 more police in England and Wales.
5. Cut overall crime by 32 per cent.
6. Record levels of literacy and numeracy in schools.
7. Young people achieving some of the best ever results at 14, 16, and 18.
8. Funding for every pupil in England has doubled.
9. Employment is at its highest level ever.
10. Written off up to 100 per cent of debt owed by poorest countries.
11. 85,000 more nurses.
12. 32,000 more doctors.
13. Brought back matrons to hospital wards.
14. Devolved power to the Scottish Parliament.
15. Devolved power to the Welsh Assembly.
16. Dads now get paternity leave of 2 weeks for the first time.
17. NHS Direct offering free convenient patient advice.
18. Gift aid was worth £828 million to charities last year.
19. Restored city-wide government to London.
20. Record number of students in higher education.
21. Child benefit up 26 per cent since 1997.
22. Delivered 2,200 Sure Start Children’s Centres.
23. Introduced the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
24. £200 winter fuel payment to pensioners & up to £300 for over-80s.
25. On course to exceed our Kyoto target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
26. Restored devolved government to Northern Ireland.
27. Over 36,000 more teachers in England and 274,000 more support staff and teaching assistants.
28. All full time workers now have a right to 24 days paid holiday.
29. A million pensioners lifted out of poverty.30. 600,000 children lifted out of relative poverty.
31. Introduced child tax credit giving more money to parents.
32. Scrapped Section 28 and introduced Civil Partnerships.
33. Brought over 1 million social homes up to standard.
34. Inpatient waiting lists down by over half a million since 1997.
35. Banned fox hunting.
36. Cleanest rivers, beaches, drinking water and air since before the industrial revolution.
37. Free TV licences for over-75s.38. Banned fur farming and the testing of cosmetics on animals.
39. Free breast cancer screening for all women aged between 50-70.
40. Free off peak local bus travel for over-60s.
41. New Deal - helped over 1.8 million people into work.
42. Over 3 million child trust funds have been started.
43. Free eye test for over 60s.
44. More than doubled the number of apprenticeships.
45. Free entry to national museums and galleries.
46. Overseas aid budget more than doubled.
47. Heart disease deaths down by 150,000 and cancer deaths down by 50,000.
48. Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75 per cent.
49. Free nursery places for every three and four-year-olds.
50. Free fruit for most four to six-year-olds at school.
Comment on http://www.labour.org.uk/top_50_achievements
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Brent Tories and Lib Dems prefer Boris to Bangladesh
Readers of this blog are metropolitan in taste, so they won't mind hearing of news from across the Kilburn High Road in Brent.
At the latest Town Hall meeting on Monday, the Lib Dem and Tory councillors who run the council refused to discuss a non-partisan emergency motion calling for support to help Bangladesh in the wake of the devastating cyclone.
The motion, tabled by Labour Councillor Lincoln Beswick said:
“This Council notes with sadness the devastating cyclone in Bangladesh, which has claimed thousands of lives.
"This Council resolves to encourage fund raising across the borough for the victims of the cyclone including, wherever possible making council facilities available at no charge for fund raising events organised by recognised charities and relief organisations”
Rather than voting this simple gesture of goodwill through without dissent, the Lib Dems and Tories voted ruled it out, saying it was a spending commitment.
As Lincoln says “My motion merely called upon the Council to encourage fund raising and support the relief effort. I was not asking the Council to spend Council Tax payers’ money as the Lib Dems and Tories implied."
Well done to the Labour councillors there for walking out of the meeting in disgust.
What a kick in the teeth for the many Bangladeshis living in Brent that their council doesn't want to show support to their family and friends devestated by this natural disaster.
What really put the boot in is that the Tories and Lib Dems went on to happily spend time discussing Boris Johnson's mayoral campaign.
Putting Boris before Bangladesh? What strange priorities the Brent Lib Dems and Tories have.
To donate to the Disaster Emergency Committee's Balangesh Cyclone Appeal, visit their website on www.dec.org.uk or call 0870 60 60 900.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Thumbs up for Frank Barnes!
If you've been following the controversy over Camden Council’s plans for a new secondary school in Swiss Cottage, you'll probably be aware that an unfortunate casualty of the plans is that Frank Barnes School for Deaf Children is on part of the site that is needed for the new Academy, to be built under the Government's Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme.
I'm a Governor of Frank Barnes and we've been fighting over the past year to make the council realise that they need to come up with something resembling a plan for the school, rather than just shrugging their shoulders and saying "sorry, BSF doesn't cover primary schools". Parents, Governors, staff and the wider Deaf community are desperate to ensure that the unique (in London) BSL-bilingual education that the school delivers can continue somewhere.
I should add that Governors have never said the Academy shouldn't be happening - we're happy to move, as long as we have somewhere to move to.
After much campaigning, the council has realised they need a proper consultation on the future of Frank Barnes. We're worried that their preferred option - a merger with Blanche Nevile school in Haringey - just won't work. They don't teach BSL as a first language, and they don't have enough space or good access either.
Our preference is to create a regional centre for excellence in the education of deaf and hearing-impaired children, probably best achieved by co-locating on the site of another Camden primary school. It makes no sense for the Executive to spend Camden council taxpayers' money on a school in Haringey, rather than a better educational solution in Camden.
On Wednesday night (21st), the Executive is meeting to sign-off their BSF proposals and agree the consultation on Frank Barnes. Whatever your views on the proposed Academy, and where it should be located, please come along to Camden Town Hall and support our excellent school.
Concerned parents have set up an Action Group and a website - have a look for more info...
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Are faith schools really that bad?
Why is there so much angst around faith schools? Can it really be that people are worried that the Church of England (who run most faith schools in England) is running brainwashing seminars in its primary schools? Surely that would involve Anglicans actually agreeing on what they believed before they try to coerce youngsters into the fold?
Before I go on, I should say that, though I am a Christian clergy person, I am not in any way committed to the idea of faith schools. But neither am I opposed to them on principle. Mainly that's because I don't believe that a secular education is a neutral education. I think that ALL education is value-driven and the question is about what sort.
I am also very concerned that some of the hostility caused by this issue is actually a fear of Islam. I suppose the argument goes that if we allow faiths to run schools then, in the interests of fairness, Muslims must be allowed 'their own schools'. Because the popular image of Islam is of a doctrinaire religion, then the motive to run schools must be indoctrination.
Assuming we can't start from scratch, the question is where to go from here. A quarter of all children currently attend a faith-based school. There are different sorts, but I assume the main form of faith school is 'Voluntary Aided' where the faith community puts in 10% of the funding and gets a large say in the running of the school, some say in the curriculum, and appointments to the Governing Body. Controversially, they also get a say over intake. Some faith communities choose to exert a lot of influence over the local school, others less so. In my own experience, some have completely forgotten that they were ever so classified.
Would it take most of the heat out of the debate if we took away the power to choose any of the pupils? I can't understand why they ever had the power in the first place, or indeed wanted it. I would have thought that any mission-minded religion would want to use the a faith school as a shop window to as many non-members as possible. This is the chance to reach the 'unchurched' or 'unmosqued'. Here is an opportunity to educate and inform. Opening the chance to all locals is good business, potentially.
That may get a few secular backs up, of course. Isn't that why we're against faith schools, because they give the chance to proselytise? Here's where the state can again ensure good practice. After all, 90% of the funding continues to come from the state. If the Muslim community want to run a madrassah, or the Church, a Sunday School, they should rightly be asked to fund that themselves. An appropriate nationally-agreed curriculum in subjects including RE and Citizenship and a rigorous inspection system should help to achieve a school that is not a centre for brainwashing. As we basically have that already, there are no serious cost implications in this proposal.
The question, I suppose might be, why would faith communities accept such a deal? They would accept it if they were genuinely community-minded and interested in the best education for all. They get a chance to 'show their wares' to a wider audience who would never otherwise darken their doors. They get to set ethos but not coerce adherence to a particular set of beliefs. That's a good deal of influence and publicity for little investment.
The state also wins. Not only is there the 10% (and why not make it 25%?) funding, but a local partner who brings a lot of social capital to the table. If the local authority could encourage faith communities to work together in their sponsorship either with another faith or a university or charity, then think of the benefits. In fact, we might even insist that voluntary aided schools always have more than one sponsor. Of course, any voluntary sponsor would have to prove their bona fides and commitment to a broad-based education.
Upping the amount and doing away with selection should weed out those interested only in creating ghettoised schools for their own community and using tax-payers' money to do it. Then there would be no need for the crackpot Academies programme!
We might even end up with a system that is open and inclusive, both secular and faith-sensitive. You never know ...
Before I go on, I should say that, though I am a Christian clergy person, I am not in any way committed to the idea of faith schools. But neither am I opposed to them on principle. Mainly that's because I don't believe that a secular education is a neutral education. I think that ALL education is value-driven and the question is about what sort.
I am also very concerned that some of the hostility caused by this issue is actually a fear of Islam. I suppose the argument goes that if we allow faiths to run schools then, in the interests of fairness, Muslims must be allowed 'their own schools'. Because the popular image of Islam is of a doctrinaire religion, then the motive to run schools must be indoctrination.
Assuming we can't start from scratch, the question is where to go from here. A quarter of all children currently attend a faith-based school. There are different sorts, but I assume the main form of faith school is 'Voluntary Aided' where the faith community puts in 10% of the funding and gets a large say in the running of the school, some say in the curriculum, and appointments to the Governing Body. Controversially, they also get a say over intake. Some faith communities choose to exert a lot of influence over the local school, others less so. In my own experience, some have completely forgotten that they were ever so classified.
Would it take most of the heat out of the debate if we took away the power to choose any of the pupils? I can't understand why they ever had the power in the first place, or indeed wanted it. I would have thought that any mission-minded religion would want to use the a faith school as a shop window to as many non-members as possible. This is the chance to reach the 'unchurched' or 'unmosqued'. Here is an opportunity to educate and inform. Opening the chance to all locals is good business, potentially.
That may get a few secular backs up, of course. Isn't that why we're against faith schools, because they give the chance to proselytise? Here's where the state can again ensure good practice. After all, 90% of the funding continues to come from the state. If the Muslim community want to run a madrassah, or the Church, a Sunday School, they should rightly be asked to fund that themselves. An appropriate nationally-agreed curriculum in subjects including RE and Citizenship and a rigorous inspection system should help to achieve a school that is not a centre for brainwashing. As we basically have that already, there are no serious cost implications in this proposal.
The question, I suppose might be, why would faith communities accept such a deal? They would accept it if they were genuinely community-minded and interested in the best education for all. They get a chance to 'show their wares' to a wider audience who would never otherwise darken their doors. They get to set ethos but not coerce adherence to a particular set of beliefs. That's a good deal of influence and publicity for little investment.
The state also wins. Not only is there the 10% (and why not make it 25%?) funding, but a local partner who brings a lot of social capital to the table. If the local authority could encourage faith communities to work together in their sponsorship either with another faith or a university or charity, then think of the benefits. In fact, we might even insist that voluntary aided schools always have more than one sponsor. Of course, any voluntary sponsor would have to prove their bona fides and commitment to a broad-based education.
Upping the amount and doing away with selection should weed out those interested only in creating ghettoised schools for their own community and using tax-payers' money to do it. Then there would be no need for the crackpot Academies programme!
We might even end up with a system that is open and inclusive, both secular and faith-sensitive. You never know ...
Monday, October 22, 2007
Tributes to former Labour Mayor Bob Hall
Bob Hall, former Swiss Cottage and Gospel Oak Councillor died last week, aged 65. I didn't know Bob that well, but I do know in how much high regard he was held by serving councillors.
Here is the tributes in the Ham&High:
A CHEERFUL and outgoing man who gave his life to public service in Camden, died last week. Bob Hall, a government and Camden Council civil servant turned councillor, died of a heart attack last Wednesday at the age of 65.
Mr Hall was first elected for the Gospel Oak ward and then for Swiss Cottage from 1994 to 2002.Friends and family said it was his work in local government that made him his happiest.
"He was always a people person so he loved being on the council," his wife Maureen told the Ham&High. "He was mayor and I was mayoress in 1998 and it was brilliant - we met so many people and Bob really enjoyed it.
"He wanted to give something back to Camden, so we did our best during the year to fit in as many functions as possible. He loved people and now I come to think of it, everyone seemed to love Bob."Mr Hall first made his name on the Camden branch of the National Union of Public Employees, first as secretary and then as chairman. He also worked for the Greater London Council and the Ministry of Defence before taking up a job in Camden Council's housing department. It was there he developed a taste for local politics and decided to run for election."
He was a sensible and committed Labour politician who wanted to improve the lives of people," said Cllr Roger Robinson, who worked alongside Mr Hall.
"He was just one of the nicest guys I have ever known and he really cared about those he represented and he did a fantastic job. "He was great and always good company - he will be really missed."
Cllr Heather Johnson said: "I always found Bob had a tremendous community spirit. He was a good councillor who lived and worked in the area and was well respected. We were all very fond of him."
Born in Enfield, Mr Hall moved to Camden in the Sixties after meeting his wife. The couple lived in the borough all their lives, settling in Malden Road in Kentish Town.
After stepping down from the council, Mr Hall worked for the London Labour Mayors Association, organising trips abroad and days out in the capital. He had suffered heart problems previously and was getting over surgery before suffering another heart attack last week.
He died at the Royal Free Hospital.Mrs Hall wished to thank the staff at the hospital for their "fantastic, hard work."
The funeral service for Mr Hall is being held at All Hallows Church in Savernake Road in Gospel Oak on October 30.
Here is the tributes in the Ham&High:
A CHEERFUL and outgoing man who gave his life to public service in Camden, died last week. Bob Hall, a government and Camden Council civil servant turned councillor, died of a heart attack last Wednesday at the age of 65.
Mr Hall was first elected for the Gospel Oak ward and then for Swiss Cottage from 1994 to 2002.Friends and family said it was his work in local government that made him his happiest.
"He was always a people person so he loved being on the council," his wife Maureen told the Ham&High. "He was mayor and I was mayoress in 1998 and it was brilliant - we met so many people and Bob really enjoyed it.
"He wanted to give something back to Camden, so we did our best during the year to fit in as many functions as possible. He loved people and now I come to think of it, everyone seemed to love Bob."Mr Hall first made his name on the Camden branch of the National Union of Public Employees, first as secretary and then as chairman. He also worked for the Greater London Council and the Ministry of Defence before taking up a job in Camden Council's housing department. It was there he developed a taste for local politics and decided to run for election."
He was a sensible and committed Labour politician who wanted to improve the lives of people," said Cllr Roger Robinson, who worked alongside Mr Hall.
"He was just one of the nicest guys I have ever known and he really cared about those he represented and he did a fantastic job. "He was great and always good company - he will be really missed."
Cllr Heather Johnson said: "I always found Bob had a tremendous community spirit. He was a good councillor who lived and worked in the area and was well respected. We were all very fond of him."
Born in Enfield, Mr Hall moved to Camden in the Sixties after meeting his wife. The couple lived in the borough all their lives, settling in Malden Road in Kentish Town.
After stepping down from the council, Mr Hall worked for the London Labour Mayors Association, organising trips abroad and days out in the capital. He had suffered heart problems previously and was getting over surgery before suffering another heart attack last week.
He died at the Royal Free Hospital.Mrs Hall wished to thank the staff at the hospital for their "fantastic, hard work."
The funeral service for Mr Hall is being held at All Hallows Church in Savernake Road in Gospel Oak on October 30.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Two October Camden Labour Party events: open to all
CHILD POVERTY DEBATE
Kate Green, chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group.
Kate is a member of the London Child Poverty Commission, which reports to the Mayor of London and the Association of London Government, a member of the National Employment Panel which advises ministers on labour-market policies and programmes and the New Deals, among other roles. She is also a trustee of End Child Poverty.
Tuesday Oct 23rd at 8.15 pm Camden Town Hall, Judd Street
THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGE: CAN WE MEET IT?
Roger Higman: Head of Campaigns, Friends of the Earth
Nicky Gavron, Deputy Mayor and Environment Spokesperson, Greater London Assembly
Chair: Glenda Jackson MP
Wednesday, October 24 at 7.30pm, Rosslyn Church Hall (main entrance - fully accessible - in Willoughby Road, just off Rosslyn Hill)
Kate Green, chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group.
Kate is a member of the London Child Poverty Commission, which reports to the Mayor of London and the Association of London Government, a member of the National Employment Panel which advises ministers on labour-market policies and programmes and the New Deals, among other roles. She is also a trustee of End Child Poverty.
Tuesday Oct 23rd at 8.15 pm Camden Town Hall, Judd Street
THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGE: CAN WE MEET IT?
Roger Higman: Head of Campaigns, Friends of the Earth
Nicky Gavron, Deputy Mayor and Environment Spokesperson, Greater London Assembly
Chair: Glenda Jackson MP
Wednesday, October 24 at 7.30pm, Rosslyn Church Hall (main entrance - fully accessible - in Willoughby Road, just off Rosslyn Hill)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
