Sunday, 18 January 2015

Labour promises

  1. Decent wages – by raising the minimum wage, promoting the living wage and tackling the gender pay gap

  2. Secure jobs now and in the future – by raising the quality of apprenticeships, ending zero hours contracts, and the stopping the exploitation of agency workers

  3. Rights at work – by building partnerships between workers and employers and reforming the employment tribunal system

  4. Saving our NHS – by repealing the Health and Social Care Act and recruiting 20,000 more nurses and 8000 more GPs, paid for by a tax on properties worth £2 million or more, by clamping down on tax avoidance schemes and by a levy on tobacco companies

  5. Helping with the bills – by freezing energy bills, scrapping the bedroom tax, introducing a cap on annual rail fare increases and providing 25 hours of free childcare for working parents with three and four-year-olds
One has to ask - who is this aimed at ? If  your not on minimum wage, if you haven't got 3or 4 year old children. If your not unhappy with your zero hour contract or apprenticeship and have not been dissatisfied by an industrial tribunal what is going to grab your attention and get you down the polling station to vote ?

Labour used to offer shopping list politics. A long list of pledges, not in any priority, each aimed to win other a particular interest group, little attempt at coherence or costing.   That was an awful approach, this seems to be the mirror image.    No doubt polling has told them the public want achievable realistic proposals not vague promises and grand gestures.   But one should always treat such opinion polls with care as they actually very misleading.

More importantly, as a vision for Britain, let alone a programme for Government 'capping annual rail fare increases' doesn't cut the mustard.


Where are the pledges for those wanting housing ? Why not just increase the minimum wage instead of this half way house of the 'living wage'? What are the specifics of crackdown on tax avoidance - presumably the same ones they let continue last time they were in Government ? Also it is not so much tax avoidance but tax allowances which need abolishing.

Harold Nicholson MP

Harold Nicholson by Norman Rose ISBN 0-224-06218-2

Harold Nicholson was a diplomat, politician, biographer, diarist, novelist, lecturer and broadcaster, journalist and gardener.  Never quite making it to the top rank, he never the less was a witness and participant in lot of events.

He is perhaps most remembered for his diaries, which published late in his life and edited by his son, he referred to them as three books he didn't realise he had written and the most successful of his forty books (actually he wrote nearer thirty books not forty)

He had an interesting career, being involved in the conference that followed the ending of WW1 and so worked with Lloyd-George.
His politics were very odd.  Essentially a Whig, the sort of Liberal Grandee who wants to improve the lot of the workers without actually having to have them round to dinner, he zig-zagged  from being a career Diplomat, then standing for Oswald Mosley's "New Party"  - which at the time was essentially a radical progressive off shoot of the Labour party promoting Keynesianism and public works to conquer unemployment.   In spirit it was very similar to the feeling in 1943-1945 when people started thinking if we can do all this in time of war - this organisation, this better treatment for the masses, we should do it in peace time too.

However Mosley soon started his move towards Fascism.  Harold was appointed editor of the New Party newspaper  'Action'. Harold contributed articles of high brow literary artistry such as one entitled "Lift high the Marigold" which perhaps didn't appeal to aspiring black shirts and  which probably explains why circulation plummeted from 160,000 to 15,000 in ten weeks.

He was personally loyal to Oswald Moseley but wrote in his dairies "He has no political judgement. He believes in fascism, I don't I loath it." Harold begged Mosley not to get involved in fascism, saying it was unsuitable for England and would be doomed to failure and ridicule.

Harold switched to the National Labour Party - those few people who followed Ramsey MacDonald into the National (coalition) Government.  National Labour was dying even as Harold was elected to Parliament at the 1935 General Election.  Harold could have easily ended up a Conservative MP had they offered him a seat (he did ask)  and was basically parachuted into as a coalition candidate in Leicester East in a move very much like being given a rotten Borough in the 1800's.

Harold himself recognised he was essentially an old style Whig and would have been more at home in the Liberal Party but recognised they were doomed  (if only he had spotted that with the New Party or National Labour!) although he was friends with Liberal Party Leader Archibald Sinclair.

As an MP Harold had a excellent record opposing appeasement and the rise of Fascism/Nazi's but outside of Foreign Affairs, his speciality, he struggled to make any impact and recognised himself he was unsuited to being an MP.  Harold was more a supporter of Anthony Eden, rather than Churchill. He knew Churchill but wasn't argumentative enough for Churchill tastes.

After a brief junior minister role in the Government, Harold was demoted to the backbenches and lost his seat in the 1945 general Election. Once again he looked around for a party, sending out feelers to Conservative and Labour. He threw in his lot with Labour and stood in a by-election, but soon regretted it. Really he wanted a seat in the House of Lords, politics without all those pesky constituents and elections but he managed to upset both Labour and Conservatives so that neither were inclined to nominate him.

Oddly (or perhaps more generously not unusual for someone of his times and background) Harold held   Typical of his views was that he hated black people but hated injustice and apartheid even more.   He hated anti-Semitism but disliked Jews and made anti-Semitic comments toward them.  He was derogatory about Turks, Arabs, Japanese and the "coloured races".
Trade Unionists were "ghastly" the working class and the middle class were pigeonholed as  "sheep" and "dumb idiots".  He at least felt uneasy knowing that he was asking for votes from people who's views he disagreed with and who would disagree with his views should they know them.   He fell out with Anthony Eden over Suez (or Suez fiasco as it is usually termed)

Ironically his son became a Conservative MP but was deselected for being far too Liberal for the deep blue constituency party in Bournemouth.

Harold private life is covered too.  As a homosexual man married to a Lesbian wife, Vita Sackville West they had a strange but loving relationship which worked for them in the times they live in.

Thursday, 15 January 2015

One in the eye for Harold

A great little book by Phil Mason taking on so well worn historical myths.

Some of my faves are:
The Vikings were mainly peaceful settlers not sacking monasteries
Far from being desolate - Hadrian's wall was surrounded by settlements and farms
Breaking the enigma code wasn't entirely positive as suing too much information would have given away the fact it had been broken and even when info was passed on commanders weren't told where information came from and couldn't trust it.
The constitution of the USA wasn't easily agreed by wise men but cobbled together, especially the amendments and the wild west wasn't very wild.

Tuesday, 13 January 2015

Give Blood

Social Media Badge

Sunday, 11 January 2015

Last man standing - by Roger Moore

A very good collection of reminisces and tales form Roger Moore from across his acting career.
It had been wonderfully spoofed in Private Eye Magazine but it is genuinely self depreciating about himself and revealing about the many many stars he has met.

from the telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11332535/We-think-the-Paris-terrorists-were-offended-by-Charlie-Hebdos-satire.-What-if-were-wrong.html

Friday, 9 January 2015

Let the Green Party join the debate

There is an air of absurdity to the Ofcom ruling that the Green Party are not a major political party but UKIP are. 

Everyone seems to bring their own highly biased view of what should entitle a party leader to take part in a televised debate.  Usually it is the qualification that ensures their own favoured party has a place and cuts off another party.

To my mind, the key determinant should be the number of candidates a party is standing.  There was (and perhaps still is) a understanding that any party standing 50 candidates at a General Election is entitled to a party Political Broadcast.

The same principle should apply to the Leaders Debates.  Not to do so gives a catch 22 situation where a party, particularly a smaller party  is not given the opportunity to increase its support and then the failure to increase support is in turn is used as the justification for not giving it the Party the opportunity to increase support.