Some thoughts on Scottish Independence and NO

I'll be honest I was firmly in the No camp because of my complete and utter loathing for Salmond and his cronies who, for me, were actually worse than the UK based political elite but in the last day of the campaign was minded to hope for Yes, just to see them in the mess that would happen.

It was becoming more clear that the bigoted hatred being shown was a lot more than just nasty politics, so I was, briefly, minded to think let the idiots get on with it.

My hope for a Yes was conditional though I wanted it to be a complete Independence with absolutely no support given by what was left of the UK, in any form and for the Scots to be treated like all other European 'friends' and as foreign nations until they became members of it.

I wanted to see them weak, to see them squirming and in a mire.

I saw the benefits for England, especially the economical ones, even things like Trident being moved here, the net reduction in benefit bills etc. and my lust for a Yes coupled with my disdain for the morons branding their fellow Scots as traitors, for daring not to have the same idiotic rationale as themselves, grew even stronger. 

Now though my gratitude for No has returned, Salmond and Co. have been shown for the twonks they are and while my anger at the bigoted morons remains, the response of the international and business communities, the strengthening of the pound, the increase in share values etc. and all that will mean for the economy and our long term success will be a real positive.

Sadly though while the economic news is good I fear for what the No will bring to our politics.

The much praised turnout was, for me, little more than a navel gazing reaction and I firmly believe if those voting NO had been arsed (forgive the tone) to get out and vote in the last General Election the entire mess would have not existed.

Salmond & Co.would be the Scottish equivalent of Griffin and the Neanderthals of 3 letters we have here with the rest of us being as strong as what is now being envisaged and I also believe, as part of that, because of the strength of what Scotland would have been the powers that Call Me Dave, Ed and Cleggy went cap in hand with would have already been obtain.

I fear the outpouring of demands for votes at 16 & 17 will bring about an even worse pandering to individual groups, bringing about worse outcomes than those the likes of tuition fees did while at the same time create an even further divide by those able to vote now.

I also sadly do not note believe that the No vote will be the wake up that Labour needs, there is already talk of Prescott's plan, albeit with different names being used, for a 'devolution for England' something that was rejected and that is the same reason why I do not feel No will inspire any form of listening by the political elite.

Much as I despise Salmond, for the damage he caused, I admire the game he played, how he outsmarted the Westminister Elite and my only hope is that what he achieved so easy is seen as what it is with our political masters seen as what they are as well.

It is, for me, the only way the change in our politics that most want will ever happen.

Some thoughts on Rotherham

Been waiting to hear what Great Leader Ed had to say before I wrote this.

I'll start with the obvious and say we all know who is responsible for the issue, in terms of perpetrators, and, as per usual, there are the excuses and sadly still sufficient excuse makes to make folk wonder what the hell needs to happen before something is done about them.

Ruzwana Bashir makes it very clear here that the issues solely isn't one of some Asian men on white women and girls, they are just as bad in their own community, towards their own women and others have made very good points on the role of the idiot left and the part they played in the 'fear factor' that some seem to have when not just dealing with these individuals but the mentality they appear to have when even thinking of how to deal with these issues but, for me, while the above can not and must not be ignored the failures of Rotherham, Rochdale and others is down to the very same issues that have led to deaths through crime and massive failings in the health service, especially things like Mid Staffs and others.

That issue is the lack of accountability within the hierarchy of the public sector and the woeful inability to manage processes in place to protect us.

We can largely thank localism for it, the process of letting 'local people who know best for the area' get on with the job, but we can not and must not ignore the role played by the 'political elite' and those sat at the top table making policy, rules and regulations for all without ensuring and insisting they are followed through or adhered to correctly.

Look on any council website and you will find 'strategies', 'key objectives', 'master plans' and the like to deal with every situation, most brought about by something that has previously gone wrong, a Baby P for example and a directive from an Ed, Dave or Cleggy type passed down to prevent them in future and in the worse cases them from ever happening and we need to ask those at the very top why, with these protections in place are we being failed.

Until accountability is in place and proper monitoring done we will only ever become aware of problems after events like Rotherham have taken place, that creates victims and, for me, is a price to high to pay.

Some thoughts on England's performance in the World Cup

I've been waiting to do this and was even thinking of not doing but as someone who had a coaching badge and was a member of the FA's Coaching Association until both expired (because I refused to pay for the CRB checks they required when I already had them for another organisation) I just wanted to have my own little rant after hearing the comments on the BBC this evening relating to grass routes etc.

For me the issue to explain this World Cup performance was largely down to one factor and that was the insistence of playing Wayne Rooney.

Harsh but the problem in the Italy game was Wayne on the left which, even with the cross, isn't his position.

Rooney was played (according to some) because he is the teams talisman but if the tag is true (and that, for me, is another debate, especially in light of this seasons performances for United) then why was the 'talisman' not played in his preferred role with the rest of the team then built around him like all others?

We're we really saying that our best person for the left was / is Wayne? And if yes why then was the 'talisman' then played out of position against Uruguay?

The answer  for me was that we didn't against Italy, 'we' accommodated a player just to have him in the team, when, even with all the ability that Wayne has, his performances simply didn't merit it and, perhaps even worse then that, we had players who could do a better job but were ignored.

The positives of good players coming through can be accepted, especially Raheem Sterling but it will be hard to judge the consequence of shifting him to accommodate Wayne, despite playing so well against Italy, could have.

Fingers crossed, with him being young and hopefully just so desperate to play that he will play anywhere there will be no effect on Raheem but I do have concerns about what accommodating has and if we can't see the dangers of doing it then it will be that issue, not how the game is played at a grass routes level, that will be our problem in future competitions.

Silly errors, woeful tactics etc. can all be overcome, even during competitions, but accommodating players is a mindset that we must change.

Email sent to Angela Eagle on improving the experice for new members to the Labour Party

At the behest of Angela Eagle the following was sent to try and improved the way new members are treated by Labour, especially in the North West.

 

I've also briefly included  my own experience of Labour:

 

Hi Angela

Thanks for taking the time to call me. As mentioned the process has been very long and hard for me to get to that stage, I've  found an email from me to Noel (Hutchinson) which I sent to him on October 8th 2012 but the issue was long before I emailed him.

I won't go on about the problem with my CLP but have (hopefully) attached the letter from the Chair in which he makes his "they were being factually incorrect" claim (and yes the letter did come without a Labour letter head despite being a party demand).

Although my issue may seem irrelevant, just one small ward in a CLP which probably isn't worth bothering with for you to win the election, having talked to many people about the problem from 'just members' up and down the country to NEC reps like Johanna Baxter and higher people like Iain Nicholl (the latter albeit through DMs and email) along with MPs (again through the emails) I feel as I have been trying to get across that my issue is a snippet of the problems the party has in other areas, not just mine.

I'd even go as far as saying it is why AWS and the views about women in politics are myths with the same issues being used to promote them being related, in terms of some women being just as alienating because they are allowed to be by the party system.

I know you will disagree with that view, so will spare you an in depth analysis of it or proof.

As requested below is what I feel should be done, firstly on improving the party then on politics but I would like to point out that all have already been suggested via things like policy portal and as mentioned please do forgive any grammatical errors, I live with dyslexia.

Please also note that having chaired action groups I know that people will get involved in things when it matters and my work in problem solving has told me on more than one occasion that most, if not all, problems can be resolved.

Before I write my key point I think it would be extremely beneficial to you (forgive me if you already do it/ are aware of it) if you use the Quality Diagnosis process of mapping out what happens when someone applies to be a member, what CLP's do, how they work etc. (including social media etc.) what HQ does all the way through to what MPs do and how they work, along with and including a grievance  procedure for every level.

Form a vision of expectations and establish if those expectations are being done by all and if failures are taking place don't simply find out why but fix them.

Failures can be those like the ones I made you aware of but could also be through not knowing how, not having / believing to not have the resources to do etc.

Improving the party:

Although I completely agree that Branches, CLP's, Regions etc. can't all work as the same I do believe that some universal practices can be done:

The party needs to look at its new member recruitment structure there are some, as I am sure you will have seen on the doorstep, who want to do the campaigning, door knocking etc. and others who simply want to be members.

I suggest that most of those who "simply want to be members" don't but became lethargic due to how they have been treated and they need to be approached as individuals not just by a generic email but by a campaign coordinator with the will to want to have them involved.

The party must also ensure that new members do not become lethargic or alienated from it.

I strongly recommend that new member inductions are done, especially at regional and national conference.

I still have awful memories of the women who got shouted down by our regional conference not for being out of order for saying anything bad but for not following procedure, something she was completely unable to do because she was a new member and had the misfortune of not knowing what it was.

It is something that should never be permitted (a matter I raised with Noel & Anna) but which (sadly as per usual) fell on deaf ears and inductions would resolve things like this.

I am not saying a full day just for new members but a few hours before the full conference starts, a welcome (with a thank you for being members) and a setting out of the processes that the day follows. Induction can be seen as training and we all know that to do anything new training (and it being done correctly) is absolutely vital.

Those inductions should be universal, a mandatory requirement and I would even go as far as having a 'mystery shopper' NEC scheme in place to ensure they are undertaken.

The inductions, possibly even the new member application process, should include the asking of the resources, skills etc. which each individual can or would like to bring to the Party.

For example someone may not want to campaign in the traditional sense but may be computer skilled and willing to manage / run social media. 

Managing resources seems to be an issue that the Party can and should do better on, I doubt that it knows what it has 'people wise' and in my own experience cares what it has.

Quality Diagnostic mapping out of the resources needed will show requirements. Listing the resources available  and then marrying them up where possible would (in my opinion) be a huge help.

Placing QD roles monitoring CLP's and Region and HQ on the NEC would be beneficial.

Once the party has itself working properly, cliques dismantled etc. it's natural course will be for it to be seen to be working.

The resources it feels aren't available will be and the fundamental key for making politics work, which is engagement, will be viewed as working and, in turn, worth bothering with.

Making politics work:

Engagement is absolutely key. I honestly believe that the Tories (Coalition as they prefer) didn't win the last election Labour lost it and it lost it because it didn't listen to what it was being told.

I believe that as a party it gets and as a Government 'we' got told about problems, both internally and externally but for a number of reasons 'we' chose to ignore them.

Our communication units get told but do they pass on or answer on our behalf and if they are answering for 'us' is it in the manner we would like it to be done?

I've had replies from communication units that haven't provided information requested, misquoted and misrepresented what I've wrote and even had replies with completely irrelevant information not even asked for.

Few know how politics work. If a communications unit fails it isn't a civil servant / staff member seen as failing, it is the MP or Party/ Government and 'we' should remember that with every tool 'we' use to engage and that includes media appearances, with parliamentary protocols geared so that when they are made any correspondence relating to them is acknowledge (fully) not just dismissed because the person contacting doesn't live with our constituency.

'We' also need to stop being smug and attempting to be clever by not answering questions when they get asked and being dismissive by using phrases like "Well what I feel is important is...." after someone has told 'us' what is important to them.

Engagement also includes being seen to do, with ward councillors doing their roles. They can only be removed at elections but if they are doing nothing they stain the party for more than just their period of office.

The party needs to drop safe seat mentality and with resources created by the improving party best practice in place it should be able to.

I changed my ward from a safe Tory ward and in turn "not worth bothering with because its Tory" as my Chair described it into a Labour win by engaging with the residents, helping solve issues by simply listening and steering them to problem solvers, working with the police etc and where a person lives should not dictate the level of effort / support they are given.

People these days rarely stick to party loyalty (something I fear Labour will find out at cost) they will support what feels best for them. If one person is engaging and helping them, compared to a Labour, Tory or Lib Dem doing nothing they will support them.

There are also numerous other issues that the party has in general, the influence some can have (Progress for example) is staggering but I will leave that for people with more knowledge and party experience to challenge. For me the new member process, how the party operates and how it engages will do.

Regards

Andy

Why Labours great problem will not be fixed by All Women Short lists

For so time now I have been locking horns on social media with supporters of All Women Short Lists (AWS) who naively believe that forced inequality is the solution to the Labour Party's problems.

I mostly block the 'feministas' who want this deluded suggestion, largely because their aim has nothing to do with equality and is far more related to a career path and /or a revenge agenda, at worse formed out of insecurity and at best out of a lack of knowledge about the party "they wish to transform for the better", but follow the main instigator and some of her 'hangers-on' to keep up with the latest excuses which are being made for it and deal with male supporters of the brainwave, who are in politics and again doing it to feather their own nests, by suggesting if they believe in it so much that they should resign and give a lady their job, before blocking them as well.

Blocking really isn't the solution to debate but I find like most things within Labour, especially its hierarchy, that there is no debate, just directives to be followed and alienation if you don't.

It is the alienation principal of Labour that is its biggest problem.

A standard default of 'we' are right and you are wrong is what cost the party the last election - 'we' got told about so many issues but simply chose to ignore them .

Although they won't admit it the alienation principal is the root cause for those who feel the need for AWS, not the bile spewed against "'orrible men doing everything down the pub" nor the opportunistic ramblings made towards an opposition while female Front Bencher's are away because it makes good telly and that's because the principal allows perceived inequality to exist.

The alienation principal permits closed shops. It allows protest not to be heard and in many CLP cases were men are thought to be the problem it enables them to thrive.

Sadly the misguided perception of AWS is that when the men are gone the need for the alienation principal will no longer exist but for to many it already has happened, even if not to the full extent Harriet Harmon would want, some CLPs are gender balanced (whatever that means) yet anyone questioning why things are going wrong is still met with ignorance, contempt and ALIENATION.

It is done and used by men and women alike, there is neither the will nor the desire to end it because to stop its use would require a significant change in how the party operates and a knocking down of the house of cards which the Labour Party is built on.

A message for anyone who supports all women short lists, especially Labour's hierarchy

Copy of a tweet sent to some vocal supporters of AWS:

@LucyMPowell @HarrietHarman @EmilyThornberry etc. As someone who had problems with the party which only stopped when I left it and who knows other members (male and female) who experience similar and worse I have absolutely no doubt that many members have problems but I have zero confidence that anyone in the hierarchy of Labour has the will nor the desire to deal with them, especially anyone who believes that AWS is a solution to fix anything.

I'd apologise for making the above statement but as someone who was fighting inequality long before it became trendy and even a career path for some, a time when unions fought against equal pay for part time workers despite them doing exactly the same job as full time staff, I am getting sick and tired of hearing tick box, join the club, blah blahs.

I'll wait  for replies from all three mentioned but won't be holding my breath while do it.

Some thoughts on Rennard

The guy has been investigated and no action against him has been taken.

Some weak investigator, who couldn't find reason for action to be taken against him, has then decided to cover their own back with some petty pathetic stance that even though he couldn't find good reason to take action or to put it more simply do what he was paid to investigate, that Rennard should apologise.

While the entire things smells badly for Rennard to apologise would mean he had to admit the guilt that this well paid expert couldn't find.

The political elite should ask themselves would they admit to a guilt that a prosecutor could not find sufficient evidence of.

It easy to say yes and make the moral noises in the safe position of generating media awareness etc. but if it is the case that apologies should be made I'll look forward to the many the should now be spouted from the likes of Yvette Cooper and others while they were in office.

Progress Bursary Application: How does Labour win a majority in 2015?

How does Labour win a majority in 2015?

I would like to apply for a bursary for the political weekend and despite being male and, as such, falling into the automatic default for deliberate inequality and victimisation by the party, feel that my being a poorly educated, living with dyslexia, Northerner, who is unfortunately living on benefits because of medical retirement should enable me to meet most, if not all, tick box evaluations.

As a grateful recipient of bursaries in the past I could also simply re write previous ‘winners’ and claim the prize with little regard to what it takes to win.

The party itself, in its hope to win a majority in 2015, should do very much the same, we did after all lose the last election by not listening to what ‘we’ were frequently being told, branding even supporters bigots on occasion because ‘we’ know far better about the communities ‘we’ claim ‘we’ want to represent than the people who actually live in them, and that great success served us so well.

‘We’ should continue with our university textbook view of life, especially that formed in the Westminster bubble, appoint candidates not because they have ability to represent, have knowledge of constituencies or basic essentials, that would make the great unwashed think now that’s a person who is worth going to the polling station to vote for but because they fill a quota and rely on a complete and utter contempt for Call Me Dave, while being firm in our belief that we will win in 2015, not because ‘we’ are worthy of being elected, that ‘we’ have sound policy that won’t just make the Nation better but will also heel the damage caused by the previous incumbents, nor the values to show that not only does politics matter it works but with strength in the assumption that by default ‘we’ will win because it is our turn.

Such foolhardy contempt did, after all, bring little consequence to the party machine, the last time it failed, those who lost their seats didn’t exactly lose out, some are even in better paid jobs, the only people who truly suffered are those who let Dave and Co in and if they are still stupid enough to not see the light why should we care, it’s not like our bubble is going to pop is it…..

As mentioned I would like to apply for a bursary but having left the party because I am sick and tired of the contempt it has I don’t think it would be appropriate.
 

For anyone reading to the end however some 2015 suggestions that could help win are:

Make our politics ‘attractive’ to all not just the shouty minorities we feel we must appease to succeed.

Make the party worthy of being elected, not just in a position to be elected.

Stop pandering to the latest headline.

Truly understand what the action of our politics equates to.

Listen to what we have been told.