Follow @_andy_thompson_
The commitment by the Home Secretary and Prime Minister to release all the documentation relating to the tragic events of 15 April 1989 must be applauded. After 22 years, it is time the families of those who died in the Hilsborough disaster find out the truth about the events of that day.
I just hope that the Government honour their commitments and publish all documents in their entirety and let the truth finally be known. Lets hope that this is, at last, justice for the 96.
Tuesday 18 October 2011
Thursday 13 October 2011
Captive Consumer in the Cruise.
As I write this post I am sat on board a Ryanair Boeing 737-800, 37,000 feet above Portugal and on my way to what I hope will be a relaxing week in the south of Fuertavenutura.
But the relaxation will have to wait for a few hours time, till we are back on the ground and away from the incessant selling by Ryanair staff.
As we board we are I am aware of the classic tune playing over the onboard public address system: one of those popular ones that you can hum along to. But the pleasure of the classical music is soon interrupted by the first advert of the flight telling us that the flight is effectively sponsored by a famous fruity soft drink.
Before the cabin doors are shut, the second product affiliation is announced and this time its car hire. We get airbourne and the non stop commercialism continues with the first of three outings for the refreshment cart.
Next up, and only minutes after the first drinks trolly has been stowed and the PA is fired up again to advertise the sale of a famous celebrate mag. Walk through complete and now they announce an amazing opportunity to support children's charities through buying a scratchcard or two.
Then relative piece is shattered once again to announce the once in a lifetime opportunity to buy a stress reducing magical watch for just €12. Oh and of course I forgot to mention the two attempts at selling hot food;
phone cards and one walkthough hawking smokeless cigarettes, each of which requires its own piercing announcement.
Now we are being offered a plethora of duty free goods and there is still over an hour to go before I can escape this onslaught.
You may have noticed that I am not fond of shopping in the first place and yes, I am aware of the fact that all airlines engage in some form of inflight sales but Ryanair take it to the extreme. I guess its true that you get what you pay for and having flown Ryanair before I knew what I was letting myself in for. But money is tight and for my own sanity I need a week in the sun.
Oh well at least its seven days until I must endure it again on the return leg
Saturday 8 October 2011
Warning: The Health Lottery Can Seriously Damage the Third Sector's Health
Today saw the launch of the new Health Lottery which dispite supporting 'health related projects' in 51 regions across the country threatens the very existence of the third sector already reeling from governmental cuts.
Should the Health Lottery prove popular (and given the higher prizes compared to the National Lottery that is highly likely) the money available to Third Sector projects on the whole will drastically fall leaving many projects both now and in the future facing the axe.
Since its inception, the national lottery has raised over £26bn for good causes and has enabled many worthwhile and impactive projects run by third sector organisations that have made a real difference to the lives of so many.
The Health Lottery should come with a health warning....playing it could seriously damage the work of charities in your area.
Thursday 6 October 2011
In 10 years of war in Afganistan....
382 British service personel have given thier their life in active duty. Their average age is just 26. Each one leaves behind a family devestated by the loss - all of which can, if they so choose, access help and support from the Royal British Legion.
382 reasons to support the British Legion's poppy appeal this year - lets help them pass the £36m they raised last year.
382 reasons to support the British Legion's poppy appeal this year - lets help them pass the £36m they raised last year.
Tuesday 4 October 2011
Theresa May.....A big Thank You
For making such an idiot of yourself and undermining your own case against the HRA....
Sorry IDS but you've got this one wrong
If Iain Duncan Smith is genuinely concerned about changing lives through the promotion of social justice he needs to rethink his approach; widen his focus from just the family and family breakdown; and stop falling back on idiology to find solutions to what the Tories term 'Broken Britain'.
His speech to conference yesterday pointed out just how short sighted he is in his understanding of what constitutes social injustice and what should be done to tackle it. During his speech he linked the riots, gangs, antisocial behaviour, child neglect, poor parenting, kidnap and murder to social housing, poverty and dependency on the welfare state. The link between them ? Family breakdown, family breakdown and family breakdown.
It appears that IDS sees family breakdown as the root of all evil, as the catalyst for the formation of a social 'underclass' that is 'governed by a perverse set of values'. Now despite the glaring obvious question about crime and the middle and upper classes, it is IDS' language really worries me.
His speech really makes me wonder just how he defines social justice and who he sees as being its focus. My feeling is that for Mr Duncan Smith it means the protection of the majority from the actions and discourse of this 'perverse underclass' who lack the moral fabric and aspirational steer that can only come from a traditional family where parents are united in marriage; and that actively changing behaviours and aspirations is primarily for the benefit of society and not the individual. This position is at odds with the general definition of social justice which is enabling individuals to have the opportunity to make the most out of their lives.
Now whilst I can't argue against the fact that a loving, caring upbringing can have a positive impact on the life chances of the individual and their potential to be law abiding citizens I vehemently reject the idea that such upbringings are only available from married parents and that tackling social injustice requires nothing more than simply to offer married couples and ideological tax break in the misguided hope that this will encourage them to stick together for the benefit of the children.
If IDS is serious about tackling social injustices he must recognise that social justice is about making the individual the primary beneficiary and accept that from this society will also gain. If he has money to spend on supporting social justice perhaps he should think about working to reduce poverty as a whole
Monday 3 October 2011
In a Messy Divorce its the Family I Worry About
Two weeks ago in Birmingham, the Lib Dems set out their opening moves in what could arguably be seen as the most important strategic play in the life of the coalition – the terms of the ‘divorce’. Today, the Tories fired their first salvos in response and one thing is clear: they are determined to make it as messy and protracted as possible knowing that a messy ‘divorce’ threatens to split the Lib Dem family in the process.
In Birmingham, many high profile figures within the Lib Dems were, quite rightly in my opinion, determined in their efforts to distance the party from the antics of the ‘ruthless’ Tories; to set the limits of our culpability and promote the positive impact the Lib Dems were having not only on the policies of the coalition but also the lives of millions of disadvantaged people across the UK. Yet William Hague’s superlatives for the non-partisan quality of the coalition is a clever move which seeks to blur the boundaries between the two parties, the very same boundaries that senior members of the party worked hard to demarcate a fortnight ago.
Whilst on the face of it, Hague’s revelation that examining issues with Lib Dem Cabinet Members presents “a wonderfully refreshing, rational discussion ... in which you know party identity is not the first consideration” is a complement to the maturity of both the Lib Dems and Tories in government, there is no doubt that it is actually a carefully calculated statement intended to tie the Lib Dems into the consequences of coalition policy. By presenting a public image of level headed and mature debate between progressive politicians Hague successfully plants the seed in the public psyche that the Tories and Lib Dems aren’t as ideologically separated as many senior Lib Dems made out; that policy is bases upon a set of shared values and that the Lib Dems cannot therefore distance themselves from the perceived consequences of all coalition policies – even those which we seek to publicly distance ourselves from.
However, Hague’s comments aren’t just aimed at Joe Public. They are timed to make the most of a leaked report in the Independent on Sunday which suggests that Senior Lib Dems are working with their Tory counterparts to secure their own seat in the Cabinet should the Tories win by a small, but outright majority in 2015 by driving a wedge between those in the party who feel that Nick and Danny are a little too comfortable with the ideology of our coalition partners and those on the right of the party who feel more of an affinity to the Tory policy ideas.
As both parties have set out their opening positions in this very public divorce hearing, two things are stand out. Firstly it appears that not everyone within the party is hoping for 'divorce' and secondly if and when we do 'divorce' the Tories, it will be a very messy affair. It will be interesting to watch how it plays out over the coming years: who will be left with the family home, and who will be left with nothing? This is going to be a messy one, my worry is what will happen to the children.
In Birmingham, many high profile figures within the Lib Dems were, quite rightly in my opinion, determined in their efforts to distance the party from the antics of the ‘ruthless’ Tories; to set the limits of our culpability and promote the positive impact the Lib Dems were having not only on the policies of the coalition but also the lives of millions of disadvantaged people across the UK. Yet William Hague’s superlatives for the non-partisan quality of the coalition is a clever move which seeks to blur the boundaries between the two parties, the very same boundaries that senior members of the party worked hard to demarcate a fortnight ago.
Whilst on the face of it, Hague’s revelation that examining issues with Lib Dem Cabinet Members presents “a wonderfully refreshing, rational discussion ... in which you know party identity is not the first consideration” is a complement to the maturity of both the Lib Dems and Tories in government, there is no doubt that it is actually a carefully calculated statement intended to tie the Lib Dems into the consequences of coalition policy. By presenting a public image of level headed and mature debate between progressive politicians Hague successfully plants the seed in the public psyche that the Tories and Lib Dems aren’t as ideologically separated as many senior Lib Dems made out; that policy is bases upon a set of shared values and that the Lib Dems cannot therefore distance themselves from the perceived consequences of all coalition policies – even those which we seek to publicly distance ourselves from.
However, Hague’s comments aren’t just aimed at Joe Public. They are timed to make the most of a leaked report in the Independent on Sunday which suggests that Senior Lib Dems are working with their Tory counterparts to secure their own seat in the Cabinet should the Tories win by a small, but outright majority in 2015 by driving a wedge between those in the party who feel that Nick and Danny are a little too comfortable with the ideology of our coalition partners and those on the right of the party who feel more of an affinity to the Tory policy ideas.
As both parties have set out their opening positions in this very public divorce hearing, two things are stand out. Firstly it appears that not everyone within the party is hoping for 'divorce' and secondly if and when we do 'divorce' the Tories, it will be a very messy affair. It will be interesting to watch how it plays out over the coming years: who will be left with the family home, and who will be left with nothing? This is going to be a messy one, my worry is what will happen to the children.
Monday 13 June 2011
Taking a battering in the polls was the best thing that could happen to us
You may think that this is a rather perverse and even nonsensical statement for any Lib Dem member to make but stick with me if you will and I will explain why.
For as long as I can remember, the Liberal Democrats have been the party of protest in two ways. Firstly as the safe option for a protest vote because secondly, we were seen as a party of perpetual opposition. We were the cross on the ballot paper that puts two fingers up to the government of the day without really changing the political landscape. We were the party of perennial protesters, waving our liberal banners in protest at government policy and trying to exert a limited influence within the Palace of Westminster.
As a party, we had grown comfortable with our place in Westminster politics, we accepted that we were a party of opposition and recognised that under the current First Past the Post system, we were always likely to stay there. The upshot of that was whilst we produced numerous legitimate and worthy policies, we also set out some policies that, if we are honest with ourselves, we couldn’t uphold if we ever entered government; policies popular with particular sections of the electorate and therefore important to the party at a local level but ultimately undeliverable at a national level.
May the 6th 2010 put the cat amongst the pigeons and threw Lib Dem policies into the media spotlight and despite the fact that 75% of our manifesto is currently being enacted in the Commons (compared with just 60% of the Tories’) it is that one undeliverable, tuition fees, that has come back to bite us. Hard.
Roll forward 12 months and the party takes an almighty tub thumping in both in the local elections and the AV referendum. The response from the party has been mixed. There were some very high profile calls for the party to pull out of the coalition before we even went to the polls and privately, some members have called for the party to go back to the future, back to our oppositional roots, away from the trials, tribulations and responsibilities of government fearing further blood loss in the local elections twelve months from now.
Government is not our biggest enemy right now; it is the mentality of a party that has been launched from its comfort zone of opposition and protest into the pressure cooker of government and responsibility. Our biggest enemy is within. It is the fear of change that being in government is forcing upon us. It is the reluctance to face a moment of introspection, to look at the realities of why we got such a bloody nose on May 6th and a reluctance to make the changes necessary to correct our failings.
The devastating results were the best thing for us as party for one simple reason: it taught us some tough lessons, lessons we must learn and fast.
No more can we make promises we can’t keep. We must show that we are a credible force in politics with serious, deliverable policies that reflect, and are honest about, the realities of the day and the limitations of what can be achieved.
No more can we rely on protest votes to win us seats. We must make sure that the electorate understands what a liberal politics is all about, not just in the form of policies, but with clear and unequivocal values that drive all that we do, both locally and nationally: equality, liberty of expressions, freedom from the Orwellian scrutiny of the Big Brother state and the promotion of human rights for all must drive all we do.
However, having these values at our core is not enough: we need to demonstrate to the electorate why they are of critical importance in contemporary society. We must challenge the dominant discourses that sees human rights as nothing more than a mechanism for protecting those who have ‘wronged’ society; and that see equality as process for undermining Britishness and the privilege that certain social groups enjoy.
We must grow a core support of people who know and subscribe to the visions and values of liberal politics. We need to be clear about who we are. For if we are not, how can we expect the electorate to buy into what we believe in?
We may be a little bloodied in battle but learn the lessons and we may still win the war.
This article is cross published in Lib Dem Voice. To view this article on the LDV website, click here
For as long as I can remember, the Liberal Democrats have been the party of protest in two ways. Firstly as the safe option for a protest vote because secondly, we were seen as a party of perpetual opposition. We were the cross on the ballot paper that puts two fingers up to the government of the day without really changing the political landscape. We were the party of perennial protesters, waving our liberal banners in protest at government policy and trying to exert a limited influence within the Palace of Westminster.
As a party, we had grown comfortable with our place in Westminster politics, we accepted that we were a party of opposition and recognised that under the current First Past the Post system, we were always likely to stay there. The upshot of that was whilst we produced numerous legitimate and worthy policies, we also set out some policies that, if we are honest with ourselves, we couldn’t uphold if we ever entered government; policies popular with particular sections of the electorate and therefore important to the party at a local level but ultimately undeliverable at a national level.
May the 6th 2010 put the cat amongst the pigeons and threw Lib Dem policies into the media spotlight and despite the fact that 75% of our manifesto is currently being enacted in the Commons (compared with just 60% of the Tories’) it is that one undeliverable, tuition fees, that has come back to bite us. Hard.
Roll forward 12 months and the party takes an almighty tub thumping in both in the local elections and the AV referendum. The response from the party has been mixed. There were some very high profile calls for the party to pull out of the coalition before we even went to the polls and privately, some members have called for the party to go back to the future, back to our oppositional roots, away from the trials, tribulations and responsibilities of government fearing further blood loss in the local elections twelve months from now.
Government is not our biggest enemy right now; it is the mentality of a party that has been launched from its comfort zone of opposition and protest into the pressure cooker of government and responsibility. Our biggest enemy is within. It is the fear of change that being in government is forcing upon us. It is the reluctance to face a moment of introspection, to look at the realities of why we got such a bloody nose on May 6th and a reluctance to make the changes necessary to correct our failings.
The devastating results were the best thing for us as party for one simple reason: it taught us some tough lessons, lessons we must learn and fast.
No more can we make promises we can’t keep. We must show that we are a credible force in politics with serious, deliverable policies that reflect, and are honest about, the realities of the day and the limitations of what can be achieved.
No more can we rely on protest votes to win us seats. We must make sure that the electorate understands what a liberal politics is all about, not just in the form of policies, but with clear and unequivocal values that drive all that we do, both locally and nationally: equality, liberty of expressions, freedom from the Orwellian scrutiny of the Big Brother state and the promotion of human rights for all must drive all we do.
However, having these values at our core is not enough: we need to demonstrate to the electorate why they are of critical importance in contemporary society. We must challenge the dominant discourses that sees human rights as nothing more than a mechanism for protecting those who have ‘wronged’ society; and that see equality as process for undermining Britishness and the privilege that certain social groups enjoy.
We must grow a core support of people who know and subscribe to the visions and values of liberal politics. We need to be clear about who we are. For if we are not, how can we expect the electorate to buy into what we believe in?
We may be a little bloodied in battle but learn the lessons and we may still win the war.
This article is cross published in Lib Dem Voice. To view this article on the LDV website, click here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)