Do politicians really care?

Well now we have it from the horse’s mouth – the middle classes are going to suffer too. According to Ken Clarke, the Justice Secretary, the middle classes are unaware of the scale of government spending cuts that will hit them this year.

In other words, Tory England is going to hurt about as much as it does for us oiks, who survive on a day to day basis. No great surprise there! The news comes hot in pursuit of other reports that Birmingham City Council is to axe 7,000 jobs as part of their cuts programme.

Birmingham has always been a candidate for mass redundancies, particularly as the Council is Tory-led, with significant back-up from the Lib-Dems. In fact, the Council has never been noted for its care for its workforce (see a more detailed report here) and these announcements will have a profound effect on working people in Birmingham.

Clarke is right to point out they will suffer as a result of these cuts, but he should have told the whole truth – everyone will hurt, and in a very big and painful way. So, why did he isolate just the middle classes? Easy, you only have to look at the fact he gave the interview to the Daily Telegraph to find your answer. He is desperately trying to shore up Tory votes and where better to reach out to middle class Tories than in their very own rag?

In three months time local elections will fall again and good money is on a landslide loss of seats for both Tories and Lib-Dems. Look at any map and see which councils they run and you quickly realise the close links they have with the middle classes – Woking, Westminster, Stafford, Basingstoke and Shrewsbury and Atcham – not exactly poverty crisis points dominated by an ‘underclass’ of poor.

But wouldn’t it be nice if one day a Tory or a Liberal Democrat politician were to turn around and fight for the rights of the working classes? Of course that’s not going to happen – after all, what does David Cameron, have in common with the average worker, or single parent. His estimated (albeit disputed) personal wealth of £30m places him in a totally different league. Indeed, in his Cabinet, Cameron has eighteen millionaires, including Nick Clegg, although in his defence, little Nick only owns about £1.8m.

All of this led Sadiq Khan to suggest these rich Tories were unable to empathise with the average worker. Speaking to James Kirkup of the Daily Telegraph, he said:

That they are rich is relevant because of the lack of empathy. I’m not saying that they can’t empathise – but they just don’t get it.

For them, tightening your belt is taking two holidays a year instead of three . . . or having one au pair rather than two. I think it is a problem if you have a cabinet that doesn’t understand the real challenges that people face. If you have a background that is one-dimensional and have not had the life experiences or understood what sacrifice means to ordinary punters, I would say it is difficult.

But Khan needs to be careful. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, has an estimated personal wealth of around £4m, Ed Balls is the son of a professor, and attended a fee-paying school; Harriet Harman went to St Pauls and her aunt is a countess; and Shaun Woodward is a multimillionaire with homes in several countries.

In short it seems none of the party leaders have much in common with any of us working folks. They all live in safe financial cocoons, with chauffeur-driven transport, where foreign holidays are expected and their annual clothing budget is probably more than the average person pays in a decade.

Not sure about my readers, but I haven’t been away for a holiday for three years and when I did, it was to Devon (don’t knock it – gorgeous county and wonderful people). Last year I spent approximately £100 on clothing – and that includes socks and underwear. I don’t drive, so I have to rely on busses and my monthly pass costs me £40. I was looking forward to getting an older person’s bus pass soon, but my local area seem likely to scrap that.

I’m not complaining about my life – more would be nice, of course, but I am happy with things the way they are. What angers me is when politicians try to tell me they know what its like to be me. Or how those with far more money than me tell me they know what is like to worry about money.

Yesterday I toured around the power companies, because if I stayed with my current supplier I would have to pay £12 more a month. If Messrs Cameron, Osborne, Clarke and Clegg can tell me they did the same I will sit back and shut up.

Until then I have a right to be angry.

Why the Tories feel safe

Since May 6th, the Conservatives (I largely discount the Lib-Dems now, because they are now part of the Tory machine) have been in power and have already made savage swipes at our welfare system. Although the Tories once insisted frontline services would not be affected, we are regularly hearing each day of redundancies in our schools, hospitals and police forces.

Despite this, a recent MORI poll for the Economist showed the public viewed Osborne’s Budget as one of the six best since the 1970s. Even more disturbing is that fact that now the Tories are languishing on a 40% share of the voteand Labour is largely unchanged since the election – even though our public services are now seriously under threat.

Several reasons spring to mind to explain this bizarre situation. Firstly, it seems the public are satisfied to bury their heads into their hands and assume “if it’s not affecting me, then it’s OK”. So, if you aren’t unemployed, or living on little more than a basic living wage, then you may feel you are not being dramatically affected by the recent austerity measures. Indeed, evidence from a number of think tanks suggests large numbers of people now classified as middle class will only experience a minor change to their standard of living, so there is some truth to their analysis.

What these people fail to see is how the next round of cuts, expected in the autumn, will affect us all. All pointers suggest the cuts, along with VAT increases, will substantially change the way many of us live our lives. Our hospitals will be less efficient, our schools will have more children in each classroom as the number of teachers is reduced, with less police officers on patrol there will be more crime. Oh ... and the skill level of our workforce will deteriorate as the government and private sector fail to invest in training and skill development. All of this happening in a nation with constantly rising unemployment.

Now you may wonder why Labour hasn’t been doing more to expose this to the electorate. After all, there is a leadership election on and it offers an ideal time to flaunt our more radical policies as we expunge ourselves of the New Labour project. Unfortunately, the entire election process has been taken over by the ‘management team’ at Victoria Street, leaving most party members and, it seems, the broader public disillusioned by the entire process.

If you don’t think the candidates are being stifled by the party machine, then ask yourself why is it the candidates are either absent, or silent at PMQ every Wednesday? It’s all very well each of them organising a petition to oppose some aspect of Tory policy, but why are they not shouting from the rooftops – this is wrong! A few tweets each day and the odd television appearance are pretty half-hearted measures.

Instead, we are forced to endure another three months of Harriet Harman as acting leader – a political lightweight by any stretch of the imagination. Thank goodness parliament goes into recess in a couple of weeks – at least we won’t have to face the agony of watching Cameron systematically destroy her. Her pleas of “he isn’t answering the question ...” are starting to bore even the most dedicated Labour party member and I am almost beginning to assume it will never get better.

I was one of those people who argued for a long debate over the summer to decide on our future leader, but I am starting to question whether I was right. The hustings are a joke, offering no real chance for the candidates to debate the issues and instead they only allow them to roll out bland ‘non-statements’ of where they stand politically.

David Miliband is fighting for the centre ground and seems destined to win, so is already being crowned by many, even before the vote. Ed Miliband is vying for the soft left vote with his “I wasn’t in parliament, so you can’t blame me” approach – pretty weak as he was and adviser and then later a member of parliament during the period – so his hands are just as tainted as any of the other candidates. As for Ed Balls, well he hasn’t really said very much, other than how he wants to blame all those nasty immigrants for taking our jobs – a bit unfair perhaps, but it isn’t far off the truth. Poor old Andy Burnham seems to have already acknowledged he is one of the runners-up and hardly makes a peep in the hope he can appear the strong, silent type.

Good old Diane Abbott was set to carry the mantle of the left and if she is the best we can offer, then we had all better pack up and go and play dominoes. Let’s be frank, her defence of sending her child to a £10,000 per annum private school is indefensible, even though we may understand why, as a parent, she felt it necessary. More importantly, raising the subject at every husting is dreadfully boring – and seems to achieve very little. If only she would just shout out mea culpa and be done with it.

With all this in mind, is it any wonder Cameron feels confident? If Labour fails to get its act together in the next few weeks, we can look forward to the Tories being in power not only for the full term of this parliament, but for the next as well. So, our MPs and leaders must be held to account. We should be asking why there is no real debate in the election hustings. Why are the candidates not attacking Cameron at PMQ? Why are MPs not joining with our brothers and sisters in the trade union movement to mobilise opposition to the cuts? And how can we rescue the party before Harriet Harman and all the old guard from the New Labour era edge us towards disaster?

Above all, we must see RESISTANCE!

Human Rights and where Labour went wrong

If you want to understand some of the reasons why Labour lost the last election then take a look at the headlines in today’s “Morning Star”. Now this is not a newspaper with a large circulation and frequently its editorials have been at odds with the broad general consensus. However, on this occasion the issue they raise habe been followed up in many of the broadsheets (I think we can safely dismiss the red-tops as only being useful to keep your chips warm).

Baha Musa was a 26-year old hotel receptionist living in Iraq ad who was arrested by soldiers from the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment. During their ‘interview, Mr Musa suffered a total of 93 injuries whilst being held at the UK operated detention centre in Basra.

Sadly this case was not unusual – a further nine complaints were received of abuse of prisoners by British forces at the Majar-al-Kabir base near al-Amarah and four soldiers from the 1st Battalion, Royal Regiment of Fusiliers were found guilty of abusing looters. In the case of Baha Musa, one soldier, Corporal Donald Payne, pleaded guilty to inhumanely treating prisoners, but was acquitted of manslaughter – he was dismissed from the army.

Now we hear news that Adam Ingram, the former minister responsible for the armed forces between 2001 - 2007, misled parliament by denying British forces hooded detainees as an interrogation technique. In a written response to a question in the house, he said: “The UK believes that this is acceptable under Geneva Conventions but I should make absolutely clear that hooding was only used during the transit of prisoners. It was not used as an interrogation technique”.

Regrettably, breaches of the human rights of terrorists captured by UK forces are not uncommon. Take the case of Liam Holden, the last person in the UK who was sentenced to be hanged, who insisted that he made the confession only because he had been held down by members of the Parachute Regiment, whom he says placed a towel over his face before pouring water from a bucket over his nose and mouth, giving him the impression that he was drowning. Holden, a Roman Catholic, was 19 and employed as a chef when he was detained while at his parents home in the Ballymurphy area of west Belfast in October 1972 during a raid by soldiers of the Parachute Regiment. Apparently acting on a tipoff from an informer, the soldiers accused Holden of being the sniper who, a month earlier, had shot dead Private Frank Bell of the regiment's 2nd Battalion. Bell had just turned 18 and had joined the regiment six weeks earlier. He was the 100th British soldier to die in Northern Ireland that year.

When Holden came to trial in April 1973 he told the jury he had been playing cards with his brother and two friends in a public place at the time Bell was shot. He said that after being arrested in his bed the soldiers had taken him to their base on Black Mountain, west of Belfast, where he was beaten, burned with a cigarette lighter, hooded and threatened with execution.

The Labour party has always tried to portray itself as the party of the underdog, the weak and the oppressed – yet repeatedly there have been cases reported where suspects held by UK authorities have suffered serious infringements of their basic human rights. This was, and always will be totally unacceptable and should have never happened. In the latter years of government, the leadership under Blair, and later Brown became complacent and complicit in barbaric acts against suspects.

More disturbingly, one of the current leadership candidates withheld information from parliament and the people because of fears that if he did so “it would have violated an intelligence-sharing agreement with the United States”. I am, of course, referring to the Binyam Mohamed case where David Miliband held back information about the interrogation procedure – Mr Mohamed later revealed that British spies interviewed him during the time he alleges he was having his chest and penis cut with a scalpel and stinging liquid poured into the wounds, and that they passed on detailed personal information about him to his torturers.

Hardly the kind of actions one would expect from a potential leader of the Labour party and certainly not the behaviour of someone now wishing to portray himself as all-listening and all-caring.

We can only hope the party membership sees through the spin and glitz and recognises him for what he is – another example of New Labour revisionism with no apparent passion for human rights or civil liberties. If we fail, we risk having a leader who not only ignores the lessons from the past, but perpetuates the errors in the future.