UK Uncut Needs To Get Serious

Does anyone at UK Uncut know this man?

Keir's continuing his critique of the UK Uncut movement.

Today saw yet more store occupations. It has been a trademark protest from the group, determined that they will make the likes of Sir Philip Green and bosses of Tesco, Vodafone and Boots pay their fair whack of tax.

It's a novel idea. Keir understands that the thinking is that if they continue to shut these stores down, infrequently and for short periods of time, then it will affect the profits of these companies enough to say "Ok, we'll pay our tax". It could also act as a tool to embarrass the businesses and their bosses.

Now, in the 12 months until August 29 2009 Arcadia, parent company of Topshop, made £213.6m in pre-tax profits. Arcadia owns around 2,500 stores in the UK. If we work on the basis that each store creates the same profit (which it doesn't, but bear with Keir), we can deduce that every Arcadia-owned store makes £85,440 profit every year.

There were 253 business days in 2009. So let's say each store therefore made £377.71 profit for Arcadia every day. Today's demo was scheduled on the UK Uncut Facebook event page to run from 1pm until 3pm. Let's assume every store opens from 9am until 6pm; it would make £37.52 in profit per hour. So, if UK Uncut successfully shut down stores for the 2-hour duration of their demos, they will stop around £80 of profit being made.

And frankly, anyone walking by and realising they can't go in because it's been shut will probably pop back later if it's that important.

Keir knows that constant, national occupations of this kind will block more profits. And he knows the maths aren't as simple as all that. But the point should be clear; these demos don't really hurt the big businesses. And even if they did, business owners like Sir Philip Green would probably hire more security instead of paying their taxes.

These store occupations are nice, novel profile-raisers. And Keir understands that certain people like to think they're making change by Tweeting the numbers of police officers who use pepper spray. But middle-class angst at the police won't change much.

UK Uncut needs to move on if it wants to achieve anything. As Keir explained the other day, movements need to win if people are to be kept and drawn in and if the power of the movement is to be respected.

David Gauke, pictured above, is the Conservative Party Member of Parliament for Hertfordshire South West. He is not as high-profile as Sir Philip Green, nowhere near as rich and people don't go to his empire for fast-fashion fixes. He is, however, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury. And he has the power to change corporate taxation policy. He is also responsible for the "strategic oversight of the UK tax system including direct, indirect, business and personal taxation" and is the "Leader Minister on European and International tax issues."

David Gauke can change tax policy. Topshop and Boots store managers cannot.

It's time for UK Uncut to get serious if it wants to force change. If it doesn't, then by all means it should keep up the store occupations as some weekend fun to cure boredom and a tool for Laurie Penny's career progression.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Flames Of Discontent Appeased By Defeat

Keir, like many others, has watched as a movement of people have been stirred into action since the appointment of the slashers in Her Majesty's most recent Government. To say this has been a movement of peaks and troughs is to state the glaringly obvious.

It's hard to ascertain when this whole movement started. And it has at times been a broader movement, encompassing other organisations. The nadir of its turnout and exposure was undoubtedly on 10th November 2010 when an estimated 50,000 people lined the streets of London, mobilised by the NUS, the anti-cuts movement, single-issue groups and political parties. Keir watched on as an event full of potential descended into chaos.

This was followed by another protest 2 weeks later with varying reports of turnout size; "several thousand" appears to be the consensus. After this demo, "kettling" entered mainstream language as something unconnected to a cup of tea and, rightly, the police became the target for a lot of anger from the public.

Meanwhile, occupations were taking place at University campuses across the country. Some of these were pretty impressive, especially when NUS President Aaron Porter was held to account for his foot-dragging at an occupation at UCL.

40,000 people were then expected in the capital on December 9th as people took to the streets to fight the proposed rise in tuition fees that had become the central issue of the broader anti-cuts movement. This was the day of the vote in parliament; a vote that was won by the Government and the fee increase went into law.

Since then, the anti-cuts movement has, arguably, focused on tax-avoidance by large companies such as Vodafone and Topshop. Occupations in branches of these companies have at times shut down stores and have highlighted the cause. But, as with the tuition fees issue, nothing has been won by the movement.

A look at the (very good) mapping of actions on the UK Uncut website gives an idea of the way things have gone since. Turnout at actions around the country have varied. A Saturday protest in London drew 50. Also, 25 people took to the streets in Cardiff on a Saturday afternoon in December, 30-40 got their gloves on in Bristol and a dozen turned up for an event in Birmingham just a few days ago.

And just today, whilst attending another event, Laurie Penny, online mouthpiece for the UK Uncut demos, tweeted:

"In trafalgar square. There are actually more visiting school groups that [sic] protesters. This SUCKS. Get it together guys!"

First of all, Keir must commend Penny for her excellent, positive language in her attempt to mobilise people. Frankly, if someone told Keir to "get it together", he'd be straight onto his white horse, sword in sheath, ready to bring down the Establishment. Inspirational stuff.

But there's a serious point. Keir wants the same end that these demonstrations seek. He didn't want fees to go up and he wants Philip Green to pay his taxes. Most people probably feel the same. But the decline in turnout during the course of the last few months speaks of the deep problem of this movement.

What has been won? Nothing. In fact, some things have been painfully lost as we all saw when the cowardly Liberal Democrats became complicit in the rise in tuition fees.

Penny and her cohorts need to understand that not everyone is driven by cloudy idealism. People like winning. And consistently picking, and inevitably losing, unwinnable fights just disheartens them. Not only does losing turn people off, but winning will draw people in.

That's not to say losing never helps a movement to grow. It of course can. But it only can if your movement is strong, close and powerful; built on an interwoven strand of tight relationships that will last through victories and defeats. This movement though, as is attested to by many involved in it, is built mainly on social network "relationships". Penny herself says,

"Solidarity has gone hypertextual. The student movement that made its voice so powerfully audible was largely organised on Twitter."

From 50,000 in November, to a dozen in January. It's maybe a slight misrepresentation to compare those two figures, but the point is clear. Turnout, and therefore power, has nose-dived.

That lack of power has meant nothing has been won. The Government continues to savagely cuts funding to our most valuable services, meaning we pay more. Meanwhile, the blind eye remains turned to the tax-avoiding billionaires who refuse to pay their bit back to the society that set the conditions for them to flourish, in order that the most vulnerable can put food onto their table.

And if the power of the anti-cuts movement keeps sinking at its current trajectory nothing will be won. Before long all that will remain will be Laurie Penny sitting alone at Trafalgar Square, tweeting "This SUCKS" every weekend.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Legitimacy Of Appointments Manifested In Glasman

Keir couldn't help but notice the collective gush from those in attendance at the Fabian Conference after hearing Maurice Glasman speak about the future of the party. That gushing continued after the newly ennobled academic was the feature of an article in The Observer today.

From what Keir knows of Glasman, he seems to be a very knowledgeable guy. He has worked closely with Community Organisers in the UK and has been very influential within the Labour Party to try and guide the organisational culture towards a more relational, more mutualistic and more action-fuelled model. His influence could be felt in Ed Miliband's speech at the same Fabian Conference he attended, just as it could in the famous Gordon Brown speech of May 3rd.

A man with considerable expertise, wisdom and knowledge, now appointed to our second chamber to help scrutinise the conduct of Government. Many people would agree with Keir, it seems, that he is an excellent addition to the House of Lords.

So, Keir couldn't help but wonder how many of those people, so complimentary of Glasman and his appointment to the House, would also back proposals to make the House an elected chamber.

You only need to read the Guardian article to realise that people like Glasman are acutely able to perform the duties of peerage. They are thinkers, they are quiet and they work in the shadows. They are also highly unlikely to run for election.

Now, Keir is a democrat. But modern democracy is about more than merely giving people a vote on everything. The House of Lords is meant to scrutinise Government, delay and amend legislation and, on occasion, throw policies out. It is also to remain, always, in the shadow of the primacy of the Commons. If we are to elect both Houses, this primacy will be gone. In the 2001 General Election, turnout was below 60%. A Commons, elected by just 60% of the people, scrutinised by a Lords elected by the same amount? Keir doesn't fancy that.

Furthermore, some proposals suggest Lords elections at different times to Commons elections. Frankly, that's crazy. What if the election for the Commons gets a 60% turnout and the Lords election gets a 75% turnout? Could the Lords lay claim to being more democratically legitimate? Probably. And if this happened, our Parliament would be finished as we know it.

As honourable as many MPs are, we know that politics has become a career these days. That is absolutely fine. Being an MP is a difficult job and the professionalisation of Members of Parliament is, in Keir's opinion, a good thing. But the House of Lords contains people with explicit expertise, abilities and knowledge. They are not careerists; they are selected by our elected representatives (elected representatives who we entrust with the power to govern) to help to scrutinise them. They are from all trades, professions, religions, businesses, cultural institutions, sporting institutions and many other areas of society.

We have 650 elected Members of Parliament in Westminster, 60 Welsh Assembly Members in Cardiff Bay, 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood and 108 Members of the Legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland. Add to that some 22,000 elected Councillors throughout the United Kingdom. We have a flourishing democracy in terms of voting. Let us not spoil the functional aspect of our democracy with the lazy symbolism of creating a wholly-elected second chamber.

There's even more to the argument, but everyone hates a lengthy blog post.

Don't misunderstand; the House of Lords needs reforming. There are too many peers and there are too many unjust peerages dished out. Life peerages are questionable and there needs to be more faith leaders than just Christian leaders. But if we want people with the considerable talent of the likes of Lord Glasman, another elected House is not the way to go.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Ie Dros Gymru

Keir has awoken from his long Christmas slumber. So hello to you all and Happy New Year.

Pleasantries out of the way, now to address the first issue of 2011.

A few days back, Keir attended the launch for the "Yes For Wales" campaign in Cardiff. Both contributors here at Keir Hardie Blogs are wholeheartedly behind the campaign for a "Yes" vote in March's referendum and here's very brief summary of why.

Wales has grown in many ways since devolution was voted in so narrowly in 1997. Culturally, economically, politically...even linguistically. However, arguably the moment when the maturity of the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) became clear to all was on November 30th, 2010. It was on this day when Wales took the most talked about issue at the time and, hand-in-hand with the progressive political make-up of WAG, showed that there was an alternative to the devastating Tory cuts. Leighton Andrews, the WAG Education Minister, announced that Welsh domiciled students will see no increase to their tuition fees, just days before the UK Government in Westminster gave it's blessing to Universities to raise fees to as high as £9,000 per year. Until this moment, Keir was in the "Yes" camp, but not vehemently. But after this display of political direction, that vehemence was attained.

The timing of this referendum is perfect for Wales and for "Yes" enthusiasts. Attitudes to devolution have changed massively since the narrow victory in the 1997 referendum. A survey conducted in 2003 showed that whilst only 22.4% of people saw the Assembly as having the most influence over how Wales is run, 56% thought it ought to have the most influence. In the same survey, 43% of people said the Assembly's power over Health had seen services improve whilst only 9% said they thought services had reduced in quality and 31.4% said Education had improved compared to 6.7% saying the opposite.

However, most telling, in Keir's point of view, was the impact on the identity and culture in Wales that the survey showed devolution has had. Attendance at Welsh schools is up, the take-up of Welsh GCSE and A Level is up, the number of Welsh speakers is up. And this identity growth is also reflected in the survey. In 1997, 17.2% of people said they felt "Welsh, not British," and 25.7% of people said they felt "more Welsh than British". By 2003, those figures had increased to 22.7% and 28.1% respectively. When broken down into age groups, these attitudes are even more promising. The percentage of 18-24 year olds who said they felt "Welsh, not British", was higher than the national average, at 27.4%. Also higher than the national average was the 36.9% people in that age group that said they felt "more Welsh than British". Keir would hazard a guess that now, in 2010, those percentages are even higher. The fact that the younger you go down the scale, the "more Welsh" people feel shows the impact that devolution has had on identities.

For these reasons, and others not outlined here (mainly because of laziness) Keir will be voting "Yes." And for these reasons, Keir is confident of a win for the "Yes" campaign far greater than that famous win in 1997.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Labour Isn't Winning

A YouGov poll that showed -18% approval for the Government has sent many Labourites into rapture. Sure, it’s good that people are seemingly taking issue with the Government’s indiscriminate, ideology-inspired cuts. But we need to take this with a pinch of salt the size of which would ensure the whole of the M25 doesn’t freeze over ever again.

Read between the lines. In the same poll, YouGov showed that 40% still said they would vote Conservative, with 43% saying they’d vote Labour and 8%, apparently those living under rocks, still vouching for the LibDems. Does it really make sense that, despite a -18% Government approval rating, 40% would still vote for the main party in that Government?

Read a bit further. In an IPSOS poll this week, David Cameron received +4% approval to Nick Clegg’s -12%. Ed Miliband, Labour Party leader, received an approval of +4%; but a whopping 30% gave “Don’t Know” as an answer when asked if they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the way Ed was doing his job as leader of the party. To show how big that figure is, Cameron and Clegg received 8% and 11% "Don't Knows" respectively. ComRes showed a worse picture with Ed’s approval at a lowly -16%, very similar to aforementioned Government approval rating that Labourites have been gushing over. Even in that poll, a massive 50% said they “Don’t Know” if Ed is turning out to be a good leader of the Labour Party. Nick Clegg had a dire -23% approval rating in the ComRes poll, with the Prime Minister on just -2%.

We know that LibDem polling has plummeted. ComRes had them at 23% in the middle of June. Their drop to 8% in the latest YouGov poll shows, Keir thinks, that the Government approval rating of -18% is largely due to anti-LibDem sentiment; not anti-Tory sentiment.

Labour isn’t winning. The Tories are. Government approval may be sinking, but their polling is stable. And we also now have the reason why we do need to act fast, contrary to what many Labourites would argue. Though Keir doubts he would or could, if Uncle Vince pressed his big red nuclear button, we would not win a snap election. In all likelihood, the Tories would win a majority as Labour are yet to propose an alternative, and the leader’s ratings are not good enough to carry the party in that situation. Now Keir doesn't suddenly think Cable has developed some fortitude and would actually be able to do that, but the point here is that this Coalition is fragile and we need to be ready if they capitulate.

It's not all gloom though. The amount of “Don’t Knows” in the questions about Ed’s leadership shows there is a vacuum to exploit that would not only make that Government approval sink further, but would make Labour’s polling percentage grow at the expense of the Tories; the real enemy. Labour MPs have been doing a sterling job on certain issues. Stella Creasy's campaign against legal loan sharks is the Labour Party as it should be. Jim Murphy's excellent use of the internet and his sterling work with genuine new ideas on Defence is offering credible plans. Bob Ainsworth's call for a new way of looking at drugs policy is laudable if only for his suggestion that we have an intelligent debate. And Ed Balls and Andy Burnham continue to offer stern opposition to their two Cabinet rivals across the dispatch box. Both are expertly exposing two of the most ideologically-driven Tories in the business.

But, on the whole, people don't vote based on their impression of Shadow Cabinet members. They look to the Leader. So now, yes now, nearly 3 months after taking up the post of Leader, Ed Miliband must start converting the “Don’t Knows”.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Nails

Keir wouldn't have been able to stay controlled...

Habits Die Hard As Left Continues To Lose Winnable Arguments

Keir's noticed something since the Coalition took control of the State. We on the Left cannot help sticking to habits, some older than others, and losing arguments that are entirely winnable.

I give you two very different cases:

Exhibit A: The recent protests against the increase in tuition fees.

Exhibit B: David Lammy's recent piece about Oxbridge elitism.

Keir has discussed Exhibit A before. The national day of demonstration, branded "DEMOlition" by the NUS, was a day of great potential. Here we had over 50,000 people on the streets of London protesting against one issue. And the argument was sound: by increasing tuition fees to £9,000 a year, the Government was ending aspiration for countless young people from poorer backgrounds up and down the country. It was also an argument which most people would sympathise with. Indeed, most people in parliament itself sympathised with it until May. Yet this day of demonstration turned into disorganised chaos as out-of-control protesters proceeded to storm and vandalise Conservative Party headquarters. From my point of view, the argument was lost that afternoon at Milbank. Effort has been made since then and peaceful occupations of University campuses combined with things like actions on NUS President Aaron Porter within those occupations have restored some order and reasonableness to the protest. But it was too late.

The fact that the vote was passed in parliament by just 21 votes shows that this was entirely winnable. Abstainers and a few backbench LibDem MPs could have beaten the fee increase. I don't buy the standard, "oh those politicians never listen" response. The fact is the protest, the movement, the lobbying... none of it was organised or powerful enough. The NUS, as Keir has argued, missed the opportunity to organise a truly meaningful and effective demonstration. There were methods it could have used but the Union was not organised adequately. This incoherent, disorganised, factional left-wing response is an old habit. It has lost this argument.

Exhibit B showed the how another, slightly more modern, habit can also lose us arguments. David Lammy's article, put simply, argued that Oxford is elitist. Very few people would dispute that. However, because of a sneaky piece of spin, Lammy's argument was forgotten within hours. It turns out Lammy had used what Keir would consider misleading language. The sub-heading of the article reads:

"One college has not let in a black student for five years"

On the day of the article's publication, Lammy tweeted a few stats relating to "black" students and teachers. Fine. But then within the article, Lammy says:

"The picture on race is no better. Just one British black Caribbean student was admitted to Oxford last year. That is not a misprint: one student."

Keir, like many others among the Twittosphere, was livid. One! But we had all been fooled. It was probably our own fault that we didn't think to question that "British black Caribbean" criteria and Keir certainly felt a fool when, just a few hours later, a fellow blog exposed the real stats about black entrants to Oxbridge. And it turns out Lammy had also misled when he said the Universities had been "obstructive" when responding to his inquiries about these stats: Oxford University had published the information on its website.

Here we see a newer, but still ingrained, habit: spin. And Lammy's point was lost as soon as it became clear he had spun and misled with his language. For the rest of the day, the debate among bloggers and Twitteratti was about the stat spinning and misleading language, not Oxbridge elitism.

Two completely winnable arguments, both lost.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Is T.I.N.A. Working?

More polling from the lovely people at IPSOS. And you know how Keir loves giving his view on what it all means.

It shows that 39% of people see the economy as the most important issue facing Britain today. And 54% gave the economy as an answer when asked to state which issues other than their chosen "most important" issue were important.

We could read this as being obvious given the times we live in.

However, Keir found the percentages of the other issues intriguing. Just 2% said the NHS was the most important issue. Also, 2% said education and 2% said housing. These are staggeringly low. Even in the second question, education only got 15%, the NHS 18% and housing 8% when people were asked to state other important issues.

What this tells Keir is that the Conservative narrative is working; T.I.N.A. is fooling the nation.

The Tory changes are going to hit education hard. The cuts and the barmy "free schools" policy are going to begin the ideological dismantling of the school system. The NHS is looking down a similar barrel.

And the cuts to housing benefit alongside changes to social housing tenure rules will, as the Tory Mayor of London put it, cause "Kosovo-style social cleansing."

So why don't these issues poll higher on the IPSOS Issues Index?

Keir thinks it's because the Tory line is working due to there being, in Political terms, no alternative. Labour is inactive. Whenever the Tories are challenged on a cut they are making, they respond with;

a) T.I.N.A.

b) "Difficult decisions to cut the deficit"

c) Big Society bullshit

d) "We inherited the biggest deficit since Alexander marched into Egypt"

Okay so the last one isn't quite accurate. But you get the point. They are smoke-screening all of their savage policies and cuts with these lines that are scaring people into going with the narrative. That is what is leaving issues like the NHS, education and housing so low down on the list of priorities.

Until Labour finds its alternative, that smoke will only get thicker.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Mae Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau Is Not Dear To Cheryl

Says it all

Keir watched from the gallery yesterday as Welsh MPs Huw Irranca-Davies and Chris Bryant became noticeably agitated by the statement made to the House by Transport Secretary Phil Hammond.

Further to Keir's last post about the issue of rail electrification, it seems the Government is indeed intent on leaving Wales with a 20th century rail infrastructure as the rest of the UK moves into the 21st. Despite gleefully confirming a wad of investment for England's rail lines, Hammond stalled on committing to electrification from London through to Swansea, all but affirming rumours that the improvements will stop before the border.

Hammond tried to fob the issue off onto the Welsh Assembly Government but, as the First Minister pointed out, this is not a devolved issue.

Now, Hammond is just doing his job. But one person who isn't is Cheryl Gillan. The Welsh Secretary, surely the first Minister who will lose their job in some way or another, has evidently been putting no pressure on her Government on this issue. Gillan is facing increased pressure to resign from her constituents who, as if to highlight the difference between Wales and the place where she resides and represents, are outraged at plans to run the new HS2 rail line through the affluent English constituency. According to Irranca-Davies, Mrs. Gillan has now said she will resign should the HS2 development go ahead; surely she should be making such principled stands on behalf of Wales as well? She isn't. Instead she is making non-committal remarks about how she remains "fully supportive of electrification" and that she "hoped to work with WAG" on the issue.

And the Government's suggestion that there needed to be a stronger business case for electrification to extend to Wales was shown to be nonsense by Rhondda MP Bryant. South Wales and the Valleys needs this development to increase its ability to grow. But it seems the Government is playing stick and stick with Wales; forcing thousands of redundancies from the public sector whilst killing plans like this that would have stimulated private sector growth.

Keir's got a suggestion for a carrot the Government could use though: sack this useless Welsh Secretary and appoint someone to the role who can effectively represent the interests of Wales in this Cabinet of millionaires.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Wales ConDemned. Again.

"Just get on the Megabus, Katherine"

Was meant to post this about a week ago; forgive Keir's tardiness.

Keir, along with other alert Welsh folk, anticipated the Conservative Government leaving Wales behind as the axe was wielded across the UK.

And last week we were given further evidence to support that.

Friend of the blog Huw Irranca-Davies MP took yet another concern of the Welsh people to Westminster, asking for clarification from the Government to quash rumours that the planned rail electrification between London and South Wales was going to be halted before it even reached the toll booths of Pont Hafren. The electrification of the rail line would provide jobs and a faster, greener, more reliable service at no extra cost to fare-payers. A Labour initiative from last year, it would keep Wales in line with the rest of the country in terms of infrastructure development. Yet now, as ever, the Conservatives seem to want to leave Wales behind.

And this would not merely be a short delay; according to one expert, if it doesn't happen now, it won't happen for a very long time. But then, he is using big theories like "economies of scale" that we can't expect our novice Chancellor to understand. In the same article, we are warned that failure to expand the electrification to Swansea as planned would be an economic "disaster" for South Wales.

Keir can't help but wonder whether it may help to have a Welsh voice on the Cabinet Committee for, hmmm I dunno, Economic Affairs?

Anyway, Keir would like to echo the words of the Ogmore MP:

"I would urge the Secretary of State for Wales, Cheryl Gillan, to stand up for Wales and ensure that we are not left behind."

Maybe we can also call on the Government patsies to help the cause? LibDem Norman Baker wanted to take electrification even further than South Wales when he spoke on the issue last year, declaring, "The Liberal Democrats want virtually the entire network electrified by 2040."

A LibDem promise. Fear the worst.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

Competition Winner Announcement

Congratulations to Duncan Bruce who Keir has selected as the winner of the competition.

Duncan's suggestion for the best Prime Minister or American President that we never had was Robert F. Kennedy. A fine choice indeed. And excellent reasoning given too.

Kennedy's platform for government would have truly revolutionised America at the time.

Despite a number of excellent entries, Keir thought RFK was the stand-out suggestion.

Well done Duncan!

This Royal business

Keir is not a particular fan of the Royal Family, and will not be commenting on the issue, other than this post. If you ever needed any reminding how out of touch the Daily Mail is, and how completely out of time much of the upper classes are:

However, Kate has not escaped speculation as to her traditional suitability as an untouched royal bride.

The Spectator magazine once commented that she 'may still have her V-plates intact'.

From today's Daily Mail

Lib Dem Liars and the Lies they tell

A month before Clegg pledged in April to scrap the "dead weight of debt", a secret team of key Lib Dems made clear that, in the event of a hung parliament, the party would not waste political capital defending its manifesto pledge to abolish university tuition fees within six years. In a document marked "confidential" and dated 16 March, the head of the secret pre-election coalition negotiating team, Danny Alexander, wrote: "On tuition fees we should seek agreement on part-time students and leave the rest. We will have clear yellow water with the other [parties] on raising the tuition fee cap, so let us not cause ourselves more headaches."

From Saturday's Guardian.

This from a Jenny Willot leaflet delivered in the final few days of the election campaign from here
 
It's a simple equation. Jenny Willott won because of students. Students voted for her because her party said if elected they would get rid of tuition fees. Information now shows that was not the case.Cardiff North Liberal Democrat Assembly candidate Matt Smith (The Cardiff North perv) is already spinning away on Twitter, saying that abolition of fees wasn't one of their 'four key pledges' and that to implement policy you need a majority government. To Keir, it is simple. They campaigned on lies. They knew, even in their wildest dreams that they would not form a majority government and would be left to be junior partner in a coalition.
 
This is yet another reason that Keir will be saying #no2AV, as not only do the Lib Dems like to see themselves as "moderators" of the other parties, they also see themselves central in the practically permanent coalition that AV would result in; and Keir could do without their rancid smell. Alongside this, the Fib Dems jetissoning of their tuition fees policy is an example of what happens in coalitions. People vote for party A because of policy x, only for Party A to need Party B to get into government. Party B don't much like policy x, so don't support it. When policy x is as influential in garnering votes in certain places as the abolition of tuition fees has been; there is a problem.
 
Keir would rather be anyone than a Lib Dem activist out in student areas over the next few weeks.

Speaking in a Personal capacity

Remember this?

At prime minister's questions, Mr Clegg said Labour's Jack Straw would have to account for his role in the "disastrous" decision to invade.

Mr Clegg later stressed his opinion was a "long-held" personal one.

As he is wont to do when under pressure, while questioned on the Lib Dems involvement in the Coalition government the Cleggeron returned to his holier than thou default and said "Wah Wah Wah Wah Wah Iraq Wah Wah Wah Wah illegal." This was later clarified as being his "long held" personal opinion. At the time Keir thought that a bit odd, as when you speak at the Dispatch Box you speak for the government you represent, but still...

And it's happened again. Guess who this time?

Vince Cable has described his own department's plans to scrap regional development agencies in England as "a little Maoist and chaotic".

...

A spokeswoman said the business secretary was speaking in a private capacity when he made the comments.

Now Keir knows the Liberal Democrats have never been in government before, but come ON! You would have thought they'd have got used to it by now. Really begs the question, do we have to take every pronouncement by a Lib Dem Minister with a pinch of salt? Maybe they should hold their hand up while speaking for the government, just so we don't get confused.

Oh and while we're at it, how can a government minister think his own plans are "...Maoist and chaotic"? Sort them out then Vinny!

Irony of Ironies

From the Gruniad.

Pickles, who has declared war on waste in the public sector, also spent £256.64 of taxpayers money hanging a new print of a photo of the Queen in his office reception.

The Lib Dems and their barcharts

In the week after Phil Woolas was exposed as a liar, and his appointment as Shadow Minister probably Ed Miliband's biggest misjudgement since becoming leader, Keir thought he would cast some light on one of the Lib Dems best known and loved campaigning practices. In the shadow of what has happened in the past week, Keir feels he must state that of course this practice is all above board and not at all designed to be misleading...

Drawn to Jenny Willott's (Useless, Cardiff Central) website after having to apologise in the house after supporting changes to housing benefit she had previously criticised (note Keir flagging up the sloppy editing of her website)  Keir spotted a very odd looking barchart on the side of the page. It just didn't look right, and maths wasn't one of Keir's strongpoints:

So, geniuses, in the General Election if the Tories had doubled their vote to 42% they would have won, but according to Jenny, 42% would have STILL put them behind Labour, while +10% for Labour would have probably put them into the lead! Well well well, those nasty lying Lib Dems.

Keir clicked on the bar chart and was taken to this page, where the numbers and the proportions look more accurate. To help, Keir tidied them up for you and put them in a graph:

But, unsure even of trusting the Lib Dems this much, Keir made his own: (1 is Lib, 2 Lab, 3 Con: his Excel skills don't stretch that far!)

So, this is a question of proportion. Why, one wonders, have the Liberals been so loose with the truth. I am sure this could be repeated in umpteen different constituencies throughout the country. Of course, in Cardiff Central the reason is that many Liberal voters are anti-Labour voters rather than dyed-in-the-wool yellowbellys, and if those voters in their nice houses in Cyncoed realise that a Tory win is plausible, they may go back home, leaving the Labour vote to stand up and nick it. Also, they motivate not only these anti-Labour voters but also their base by overemphasising how near the Labour vote is.

So, what's the rationale behind this post? Well, its quite simple. The Liberal Democrats not only lie on a large scale: about things like tuition fees, they are amongst the most insidious campaigners on the ground and this is one of the main reasons why they are detested by so many of all political persuasions.

Keir has a question for Jenny Willott's staff:

"In the interest of openness, especially after the ruling in Oldham last week, can you tell me exactly why you produce such a misleading bar chart on your website?"

Can't imagine there will be a reply mind...

A Day At The Demo: Students Will Need A Resit

I presume he had a hammer because he was planning on doing some manual work in London yesterday afternoon?

Keir watched events in London yesterday closely. From Trafalgar Square right down to Millbank Tower, with a few stop-offs and diversions in between, he cast his beady eye over the protest which started with so much potential and ended in utter disorganised chaos.

The nation seems to have graded the protest as a fail. Keir agrees.

The NUS has tried to distance itself from the unlawful acts of some of the protesters. Indeed, the speeches by UCU General Secretary Sally Hunt and NUS President Aaron Porter were very good and had a clear, non-violent, non-partisan message. These were, however, rare instances when the message was clear.

Keir was at Trafalgar Square at 11:30am and the crowd that had amassed the length of Whitehall by 12:30pm was impressive. A feeling of the seemingly boundless potential of this demo suddenly descended over this observer. That feeling was very quickly extinguished. The futility of tens of thousands of people, when poorly organised, became very apparent.

The message of this demo was to fight increases in tuition fees. It was only 1pm when I began hearing "Nick's a prick" chants as well as some particularly vulgar chants about Tories. Now, I despise both Clegg and the Conservatives, but on a march intended to halt tuition fee increases this sort of nasty partisan chanting is totally ineffectual; even counter-productive. Party politics was not the issue here. Students should have been trying to make the people in power hear them and listen to their argument. Calling them a "prick" probably isn't going to do that.

"Surely these people have been briefed?" Keir wondered. Turns out they hadn't. Sources close to Keir confirmed that the NUS had given no sort of briefing to University Union branches as to what the focus of this protest should have been. The NUS should have clearly briefed all Students' Union heads from every participating University that this march was about tuition fee increases and nothing else. Each of these people should have then gone back to their campuses and relayed this message to all of their attendees. With energy focused on one explicit issue the message would have been much clearer to the onlooking nation and would have also presented the students in an organised, powerful light. As it happened, "Fuck Off Tories" chants and placards suggesting Nick Clegg and David Cameron have engaged in penetrative homosexual activities with each other made even me, a student, think, "bloody students".

Keir then took a short-cut around the back end of Parliament Square, behind Westminster Abbey and around onto Millbank; thus getting ahead of the bulk of the crowd. Whilst on this route, it became apparent that Keir's lovely winter coat that his Nan had bought him last year was yet to be adorned by a Remembrance Day poppy. A quiet, reflective walk through the poppy vigil in the front garden of Westminster Abbey was a nice retreat from the loud protest and the £2 donation to the British Legion was worth not only the poppy, but also the lovely conversation with the fellow Welshman who was manning the poppy stand at the time. Then, whilst on my way out of the Abbey, some students decided to walk through the poppy vigil, waving their placards and singing their songs. After being given a negative impression of the protest so far already, this did nothing to help. I've lived on campus, but it's not that far removed from reality that you begin to lose all perception of what is acceptable behaviour in the eyes of anyone with an ounce of sanity and sensitivity. About 15 solemn mourners had their moments of remembrance disturbed by a few half-cut students. Utter disgrace. Although one person thinks there's a perfectly good reason why those protesters were doing nothing wrong. This particular person appears to be a former Officer at a Students' Union. I should add that these students marching through the vigil were clad in NUS gear, with UCU placards.

So how distant was the NUS from some of the more distasteful scenes?

Anyway, back to the events of the day. Keir arrived at Conservative Party HQ just after a small crowd had gathered. The very united chant of "no ifs, no buts, no education cuts" started to restore my faith that this protest could achieve something. That was until a colleague pointed out that David Cameron was in China. "Who's the target at CPHQ then?"

Said colleague just shrugged his shoulders. Indeed.

As we turned the corner into the courtyard of the targetless building that the protesters had gathered at, it then became clear that something else odd was happening. Fire.

Fine. "Could be fun. What are they burning? Effigies? Some sort of metaphor for the broken dreams of ordinary kids?"

Nope. They were burning their own placards. I became confused. Did this mean they were burning their message? One placard said "Not in my name". It was now burning. Did that mean the previous owner of that placard now wanted it all to be in his name? "Stop Education Cuts" placards were also being burned. Had the protesters performed a dramatic u-turn and decided their message was worthy only of being thrown into a fire; reduced to ash?

Nope. They just wanted to see some fire.

The window smashing, fire-extinguisher throwing, building-storming and roof-mounting that followed just rounded things off really. The message and the purpose had begun to descend into fragmented chaos from 1pm when the chants turned nasty and personal. Still, some people have even said that all of this was justified. A mystery person called Emmeline took part in a BBC 5Live debate to say that she felt this was the only thing that could force the government to make a change.

One protester, on a video at the Telegraph website earlier in the day, said of the destructive acts, "It's probably not the best way but it's the only way." So students have exhausted every route to a peaceful resolution in the month since the Browne Report have they? The irony is indescribable: I wonder how many of those people think we should have given Saddam more chances for peaceful resolution before we invaded Iraq?

The videos, apart from showing how many identityless morons we have in this country who just think that acting like Cook from Skins will give them meaning in life, are a damning indictment of the epic failure that was this protest. They also have UCU and NUS placards and banners all over them. I think it's time to accept that this was badly organised.

Every Labour MP asked to comment on what could have been a powerful protest will now have to begin their answer by condemning the violence. That immediately softens the blow of the anti-fees message.

Keir is 100% in support of the fight to stop this ugly coalition ending aspiration for poorer families with these fee increases. But there was so much wrong with yesterday's protest.

Even more than the things mentioned above.

Why attack Tories? Lib Dems should surely have been the targets.

Why attack a building? Does a building have a vote in parliament?

And if you really, really have to attack a building, surely go for the building where the power to make the change you want is represented?

I could go on for a lot longer. But I shall save you; dear, patient reader.

Needless to say, if it turns out to have been successful and the Coalition ends the fee increase because of this protest, Keir will happily eat his words.

LetUsFaceTheFuture.

UPDATE: Fresh from Guido, it seems that elected NUS Officials are condoning and associating themselves with the actions of those who occupied Millbank. Keir will ask again: how distant was the NUS from some of the more distasteful scenes?

Monthly Competition!

Keir Hardie presents his first monthly competition; the winner of which will receive signed copies of the first two volumes of ex-MP and Foreign Office Minister Chris Mullin's diaries.
i
These critically acclaimed books are much sought after, Keir assures you. Of the first volume, David Dimbleby said they were, "The most enjoyable and stimulating of all the political diaries I have read." And Prime Minister David Cameron commented on the second volume, saying, "Every once in a while, political diaries emerge that are so irreverent and insightful that they are destined to be handed out as leaving presents in offices across Whitehall for years to come...this is one such book"

So how do you win this competition, we hear you cry? Well, its really very simple. Tell us one thing:

Who is the best Prime Minister (or, if you like, American President) we never had? We're not going to judge this on politics, we're going to judge this on how good the reasons you give in support of your chosen candidate are.

The closing date is midnight on November 18th, so get writing. Entries to keirhardieblogs@gmail.com! Good luck!

Prisoners Voting

Keir finds it odd the people he is agreeing with today...



Once you commit a crime, and take away someone else's human rights, why on Earth do you deserve to vote?

If Cameron was principled (as he claims he is with the deficit: doing it for the right reasons) then he would be principled here and let the prisoners sue, let the public finances take a hit, because letting, frankly, shitheads like John Hirst having the vote is absolutely disgusting. Wont be surprised however if the coalition somehow manage to blame Labour for a decision that is theirs to take.

Fib Demmery and Student Fees...

The phrase LOL was invented for pictures like this...

Keir got a response to his email to the lovely Jenny Willott, MP for Cardiff Central, her of the new baby possibly conceived on the expensive bed that the taxpayer paid for. (It was so expensive, she claimed, to much derision at pre-election hustings, so it could be disassembled and got up the stairs of her terraced house. Anyone fancy getting onto Ikea and finding one cheaper for her?)

Keir was surprised actually, as until a frenetic few days of activity in the last week or so of October, she hadn't updated her website on any issues affecting her constituents; especially issues, such as the publication of the Browne Report affecting the ones that put her in place in 2005 and kept her their in 2010: students. (Something she still is yet to do)

2nd November 2010

Dear Mr. Hardie,

Thank you for your email about the Browne Review into tuition fees.

I absolutely understand your concern, I’ve campaigned against tuition fees throughout my time as an MP and long before I entered Parliament.  I believe that university education should be available to everyone, regardless of their financial circumstances and I was therefore very happy to sign the NUS pledge in the election.

Towards the end of the last Parliament, Labour’s Secretary of State for Business, Lord Mandelson, commissioned Lord Browne to look into increasing fees.  It is clear that Labour, who introduced Top-Up Fees in 2004 despite their manifesto promise not to, were seriously considering raising or even abolishing the cap on fees.

As you know, Lord Browne has now published his report and recommended abolishing the cap all together to allow universities to create a ‘market for education’.  His review assumes that those who go to the best universities will earn more when they graduate and therefore these universities should be able to charge higher fees.

I do not support this approach.  For a start many highly educated and intelligent people choose to become teachers, nurses or other public sector workers, or work in the charitable sector and will not make more money from going to a top university.  I want to encourage the best people to study at the best universities and take up these types of jobs, not force them to choose between being able to pay off their debts or accepting a job which is of great benefit to society.

As a result I disagree with much of the Browne Review and, if it were to be implemented in full would absolutely vote against it.  However, the Browne Review is an independent report and the Government has not yet announced what it plans to do.  I, along with my Lib Dem colleagues, am currently lobbying Ministers to try to ensure that the final proposals do not burden students with further debt or prevent people from less affluent backgrounds from attending university.

I will not support an increase in tuition fees, but would like to see what the Government proposes first before deciding exactly what I will do.

I hope that this helps to explain my position.  Please don’t hesitate to get in touch if I can help further on this or any other issue.

Yours sincerely,

Jenny Willott MP, Cardiff Central

Keir has emboldened and underlined the most salient issues in her response. She starts off with a nice bit of blame Labour. Yes there is evidence that Labour wanted a review of HE funding. They launched the report process. This is where her attempts at equivalence fall down, because so what if Labour were considering it? (Whether they were or were not is immaterial really) Does that make it OK for the Coalition to do it?  Anyway, she is part of a government that IS raising the cap on tuition fees, not considering it.

She goes on to build a nice little get out clause, of course she would vote against the Browne report if implemented in full (which it almost certainly won't be). Leaves her a nice little grey area, and she ends on a cop out too, she 'will not support tuition fee increase, but...'. That isn't a flat out refusal to support it, that is deft footwork that Gareth Bale would be proud of.

If she does vote in support of raising tuition fees, then not only will the outgoing Lib Dem Jenny Randerson be replaced by the excellent Labour campaigner Jenny Rathbone in the Senedd elections next May, but come the first Thursday in May 2014/15 then Jenny Willott will be looking for another (well, her first *real*) job.

And in closing, this from a seasoned campaigner in Cardiff Central, where a mixture of faux outrage about student fees, Iraq, and their silly little focus campaigns helped them win in 2005 and just about hold on last time:

In[sic] student fees I love this quote from a Lib Dem in the local newspaper in 2004: "Cardiff's residents should see the recent rebellion by Labour MP Jon Owen Jones for what it is - a cynical attempt to win votes at the next general election" - forgive me for interpreting Jenny Willott's declared intention to vote against fees in exactly the same way.