I’m carving a niche out for myself as someone who can offer historical parallels to today’s political situation. Finally putting that history degree to good use. I’m on Progress today talking about what Labour should learn from the Republican shambles. Namely:
I’m particularly proud of this one and I hope you enjoy it.
One of the reasons I left full-time class teaching was so I had more time to write. I’m therefore very excited that I’m on The Staggers website today, arguing that mass movements do not win elections.
There’s some lively debate on Twitter (if you can face it) which is actually quite good-natured and constructive. Some do not seem to look past the headline and so ignore the points I made about 1983 and 1968, but that seems inevitable I suppose.
Anyway, please read and enjoy it.
Did Facebook win the 2015 election for the Conservatives? Steve analyses the social media strategies of Labour, the Tories and Lib Dems and we discuss the effectiveness of each one.
We then talk about the downsides of social media. Cory discusses academic research about Twitter being an echochamber, and we mention the abuse of MPs online. Could an unintended consequence of social media algorithms be to kill democracy?
If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe to us on ITunes and share us on Facebook and Twitter.
Not Enough Champagne is a podcast about people, politics and pragmatism.
We know very little about Julian of Norwich. You can tell this a few minutes into Janina Ramirez’s documentary on the fourteenth-century mystic. She travels to the British Museum to see a crucifix in the style of one Julian might have seen when she had the kind of visions written about in Revelations of Divine Love, the first book written in English by a woman. The link to Julian’s work is just as tenuous as it sounds.
The programme does not discuss much about the contents of the book. There are a couple of interviews with academics who underline the significance and excellence of Julian’s work. Rowan Williams (remember him?) pops up to give a theological perspective. Apparently Julian of Norwich’s work is not naively optimistic; instead she just believes that God will make everything alright in the end. I am guessing that the work is a little bit more sophisticated than this and difficult to summarise for an post-teatime documentary on public broadcasting.
When you get to the rather desperate seeking out of the cross, twenty minutes in, you wonder just how Ramirez is going to stretch this documentary out for an hour. Instead the programme becomes a fascinating study of preserving and recording texts in an oppressive society.
Ramirez does not mention the existence of the shorter fifteenth-century Manuscript edition of Revelation of Divine Love. This is in the British Library and was preserved by a group of Carthusians in the Amherst manuscript. Perhaps mentioning that the text was preserved by a group of boring old men would not fit with the narrative Ramirez wants to put across, of inspirational women keeping this text alive across the centuries in the face of the crueller forces of history.
First, a group of nuns copies the manuscript but this got lost in the dissolution of the monasteries. Then a group of nuns in Cambrai, northern France, preserved the manuscript, but had to flee because of the French Revolution. The modern version which is still printed today comes from Grace Warrack, who spent a month copying from a seventeenth-century edition, which was itself a copy of the medieval version of the text. It’s acts of perseverance from brilliant individuals which have preserved this important book today and which are justly celebrated in this documentary.
The moment Ramirez finds the anonymous graves of 1500 “martyrs”, including some nuns from Cambrai who were killed by the revolutionaries, is one of the best moments in the documentary. It feels like something you would see in one of the genocides of the twentieth century, rather than in France over 200 years ago.
We may think that issues of mass graves or book burning are no longer relevant today. Sadly, the action of Isis in Iraq and Syria show that there are still those who want to destroy the past and obliterate texts which they disagree with. Ramirez’s documentary is definitely worth seeking out on iplayer over the next twelve days. It is a reminder of the importance of not forgetting our past, and ensuring that through private acts of devotion, inspirational messages can be spread to the next generation.
This first appeared on Not Enough Champagne.
For someone who has become Prime Minister because she was seen as a safe pair of hands, Theresa May has made an incredibly bold start to her Premiership.
May has become Prime Minister in large part because she has not done or said anything very interesting this year. In the referendum campaign, she was conspicuous by her absence. In the leadership campaign, May just sat at home whilst her opponents spontaneously combusted. The anti-Francis Urqhart, in other words.
That has all changed now. What to make of these hectic two days? We’ve seen new departments of state created, others abolished entirely, and political careers rise from the dead. Theresa May made a victory speech outside Downing Street which in a different universe could have been given by Ed Miliband a year ago, but for one crucial aspect. More on that later.
The speech suggested that May, correctly, knows that the referendum result was about more than the European Union. As Steve has suggested on this podcast, in many ways Brexit was a vote against the status quo. Consequently, there could be some very interesting reforms in the next few years. The main policy commitment given in the only leadership campaign speech Theresa May gave was to put workers on company boards. If Jeremy Corbyn had suggested it, the Tory press would have said it was the mad idea of a dangerous communist. (Of course, Corbyn didn’t suggest it, because he doesn’t have any policies.) It’ll be interesting to see whether this policy makes it to law, because it could be a jolly good idea.
Politically, then, Theresa May is able to come in and plant her tanks firmly on the centre ground Labour is retreating from. Especially now Philip Hammond appears to be signalling an end to Osborne’s insane idea of committing to a budget surplus by 2020. The Labour Party would be quaking in its boots, were it not currently tearing itself apart.
I said that Theresa May’s speech could have been given by Ed Miliband, but for one crucial aspect. That aspect is the aftermath of Brexit. Here, she has made the Brexit campaigners clean up their own mess. All the key foreign policy posts in the cabinet – Brexit, International Trade, Development and of course BoJo himself – are taken by Leave campaigners.
It means that Brexit will happen. I have speculated on previous podcasts whether Brexit could be kicked into the long grass. The reshuffle shows that that was possibly just wishful thinking. David Davies has indicated that although the triggering of Article 50 will be delayed, it will probably happen later in the year. Let’s wait for concrete plans to be put forward before we speculate on that.
Leaving foreign affairs to the Brexiters could also turn out to be a masterful piece of party management. I am in two minds as to whether appointing Boris Johnson Foreign Secretary is a stroke of genius, or an example of being too clever-by-half out of the Michael Gove/George Osborne playbook. Leaving Boris on the back benches to plot against May was perhaps too risky an option, especially with many big beasts such as Osborne and Gove already sacked. Where better for him then jetting around embassies, trying to explain his poetry? As my partner in propaganda pithily summarised:
Ceremonial position where he can bombastically wave flag & be a showman.Only role he can do without screwing it up
I would certainly much rather Boris at the Foreign Office, where the main stuff has gone to the PM and the Brexit ministers anyway, then at Health or Education.
And yet. Look at the reaction from across the world. Look at the poor journalists dredging up every single offensive thing Boris has every said about a foreigner. Surely there was a better candidate amongst the 330 Tory MPs for Foreign Secretary? I think I’d choose Rory Stewart, but that’s probably why I’ll never be Prime Minister.
This is a very bold cabinet and I am genuinely intrigued as to whether the sweeping reforms promised by May will amount to anything. Whether they do probably needs some careful party management from a rookie chief whip. The Tories have a majority of six, and there are nine sacked or resigned former Cabinet Ministers with a grudge. Over the past couple of weeks the Tories have shown a ruthless thirst for government by uniting quickly round Theresa May to get her into Downing Street. If they continue to display that ruthlessness in government, Labour could be destroyed.
Read more at http://notenoughchampagne.libsyn.com/#5yZZDVC706AQaFIH.99
On August 29th last year my family and I were honoured to attend the opening of the Hazlehurst Centre. This was a project Dad was involved in towards the end of his life, which was very graciously named in his memory. I was asked to say a few words about what Dad was like outside of work, and it seems like an appropriate day to print these words below. On the right is a photo of me speaking, looking for all the world like a Two-Bit Politician. All I need is a red rosette.
This is what I said:
First of all, there are a few people I would like to thank. Thank you to West Yorkshire Police for suggesting that this centre be named after my Dad. I would also like to thank all the members of Dad’s team in HR who were very welcoming when I came to see them in February. Thanks are finally due to Mike Potts and the communications team we have been liaising with at NHS Calderdale: Eleanor, Sandra and Jane, for giving us the opportunity to attend this opening and for allowing me the opportunity to speak. I stand before you today a very proud son. I am very proud of my Dad today, especially in the knowledge that he was involved in projects of such undoubted benefit as this centre.
First of all, let me give a brief biography of my Dad. He was born in Worksop on March 6th, 1959; the second child of four to Betty and Derrick. Whilst at secondary school at Portland he founded the school’s hockey team, which only lost one game in the three seasons in which he captained them. On leaving school he read Business Studies at the Polytechnic of South Wales and studied for a Personnel qualification at Doncaster, before beginning work for the NHS in 1984. Dad was working for the Health Service in Manchester when he met Sue, my Mum, who both settled in Saddleworth and married in 1988.
I have been asked to speak about what Dad was like as a person outside of work. Dad always tried to keep his home life and work life separate, so talked very little about work to us. But I do remember when I was most proud of Dad at work. He once asked to see my copy of Private Eye, which as a precocious teenager I had subscribed to at the time. When I asked Dad why he wanted to borrow the magazine, he replied that there was a story in it about decisions which a committee had made that he was a part of. Now although I did not know much about the incident in question, for me to know that Dad was responsible for decisions important enough to be ridiculed in the pages of Private Eye was a very proud moment indeed.
Outside of work, Dad was a keen runner until an ankle injury forced him to retire in 1996. After that he exercised by taking power walks around the hills of Saddleworth. Mum and Dad combined their love of walking and their love of the coast by taking holidays to coastal walks in Cornwall and Anglesey over the last few years. They also partnered each other at Oakfield and Huddersfield bridge clubs, and together they won teams competitions at both clubs last season.
I would like to finish by talking about what Dad was like as a person. I am sure that the personality traits he showed at home would also have been obvious to those who came into contact with him at work.
The first of these was Dad’s impish sense of humour. This is perhaps best shown by what he was looking forward to about me and Liam growing up. He made this remark to Mum when Liam and I were a lot more immature and babyish than we are now – so it was made about two or three years ago! Dad said that one of the things he was looking forward to most was coming to our houses when we were older, so he could be sick on our floors for a change. I do have to say that the fact Dad never realised his ambition to vomit in my living room is something that I have decidedly mixed regrets about.
The second quality was his terrible handwriting. This is something that I definitely have in common with Dad, especially his very idiosyncratic way of signing his name. This has led to him receiving letters from companies addressed to a “Mr Hut” or my personal favourite, “Mr Z. Kazlemhurst”.
I think that perhaps what all of us will remember Dad for was his kind and generous nature. He was always generous with his time: he would ferry me all over the country to various chess tournaments, and spend hours building Lego pirate ships for me and Liam despite knowing that we would end up destroying them in minutes. I know from the many messages of condolence we received that Dad was equally generous with his time at work, helping work colleagues.
What I find most comforting is that Dad’s spirit will live on. His name shall live on in this marvellous centre. It is to be hoped his example at work can be continued by the students which he mentored at NHS Calderdale. And his example shall live on with me. If I can paraphrase a song by one of Dad’s favourite artists, Martin Simpson, he taught me how to love a song, the joys of reading, of watching cricket, and the art of conversation. These are the greatest gifts that I have known, and I use them every day.
Thank you very much.
John Hiatt – Your Dad Did
This song is on Hiatt’s Bring the Family album, which is one of my favourites. It’s an album cut in four days by Hiatt on a showstring budget, after he had finally gotten sober following the suicide of his first wife. It’s got some truly wonderful songs on it and a great backing band, including Nick Lowe on bass. What more do you want?
My favourite song on the album is this one. For a more more in-depth look at this song, I recommend this neat blog by Holly Hughes. Basically, this song is about all those times you end up saying something, or doing something, that reminds you of your parents:
The bridge is such a hoot: “You’re a chip off the old block / Why does it come as such a shock / That every road up which you rock / Your dad already did?” I feel the same way whenever I blurt out the exact sentences I hated hearing my mom say. For all the whomping drums, the fuzzy guitar, this is an earth-shaking epiphany: “Yeah, you’ve seen the old man’s ghost / Come back as creamed chipped beef on toast / Now if you don’t get your slice of the roast / You’re gonna flip your lid / Just like your dad did.” In one flash of insight he understands himself, his father, and the world – and accepts it.
Below is a live version, with a home made video accompaniment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ5WYPTdqhE
Well the sun comes up and you stare your cup of coffee, yup
Right through the kitchen floor
You feel like hell so you might as well get out and sell
Your smart ass door to door
And the Mrs. wears her robe slightly undone
As your daughter dumps her oatmeal on your son
And you keep it hid
Just like your did
So you go to work just to watch some jerk
Pick up the perks
You were in line to get
And the guy that hired you just got fired,
Your job’s expired
They just ain’t told you yet
So you go and buy a brand new set of wheels
To show your family just how great you feel
Acting like a kid
Just like your dad did
You’re a chip off the old block
Why does it come as such a shock
That every road up which you rock
Your dad already did
Yeah you’ve seen the old man’s ghost
Come back as creamed chipped beef on toast
Now if you dont get your slice of the roast
You’re gonna flip your lid
Just like your dad did, just like your dad did
Well the day was long now, supper’s on
The thrill is gone
But something’s taking place
Yeah the food is cold and your wife feels old
But all hands fold
As the two year old says grace
She says help the starving children to get well
But let my brother’s hamster burn in hell
You love your wife and kids
Just like your dad did
Happy Father’s Day, everyone.
My Dad died suddenly on January 21st this year. On February 1st I spoke at his funeral, and this is what I said:
Thank you all for coming to this celebration of my Dad’s life. Particular thanks go to those of you who have flown here, or who have driven a considerable distance.
The last song that will be played today is on an album by Otis Gibbs called Joe Hill’s Ashes. It’s one of Dad’s favourite albums. Otis Gibbs autographed it for Dad with the inscription “Thanks for giving a damn”. In the spirit of Otis Gibbs, I would like to thank you all for giving a damn and attending today.
It’s especially pleasing to see so many of Dad’s work colleagues here including many he worked with over twenty years ago. Dad was a man who tried to keep his work life and home life separate, and one of the most touching aspects of the past ten days has been reading the tributes that have poured in from those who worked with Dad that provide a different side to the father I knew. I remember being particularly proud of him , when his colleagues at Kirklees PCT gave him an “Amazon Award” in autumn 2010, for being “a natural resource, someone who knows something about everything”. The tributes that have followed my Dad’s death prove just how sincerely this message was meant.
Can I once again stress that if you have any little anecdotes or stories that you remember about Dad, can you please send them in to Mum. Such stories will be of great comfort in the months and years ahead. One such anecdote was sent to me by Dad’s school friend Alan, which with his permission I shall relate to you now. Once again, it provides a different side of Dad that I had never known about until the past two weeks.
Alan said to me that “We played hockey at school and took it very seriously and marched throughout the county sweeping all before us. I was a good outfield player but he took me aside one day and asked if I’d sacrifice that to play in goal because he wanted somebody there he could rely on. I did it without question. I wouldn’t have done it for anyone else. It’s a small incident but says a lot. If I looked up to him at the age of 16 I can tell you I have looked up to him for the years since.”
One of the things that gives me hope and confirms my faith in humanity is the support that Mum, Liam and I have received over the past ten days. There are a few people in particular: friends and family who have been extremely helpful in sorting out funeral arrangements, giving lifts or coming round for a supportive chat. I won’t embarrass these people by naming them individually: they all know who they are. But I want you all to know that the friendship and solidarity that you have shown means more to me than I can say.
On the subject of love & friendship, I’d also like to thank those members of Dad’s family who are here, and many of his friends he’d known since school. Many of my friends have said to me over the past few days that they cannot imagine losing a father. Well, I cannot imagine what it must be like to lose a friend I have known for forty years, or a brother, or a son, so I can only guess what you are all going through. I look forward to catching up with all of you later today, and only regret that it is in the most terrible of circumstances.
Finally, thank you to all of those that have come who knew Dad from the various sports or bridge clubs that he was a member of. I shall remember Dad as a man who gave me the passions that have guided my life so far. He gave up many of his weekends when I was younger ferrying me to various chess tournaments, and I have many happy memories of those days. The numerous books he bought me as a child instilled in me a love of reading, and this plus my fondness for music, which I also shared with Dad, have made me the person that I am today.
I want to end with a biblical quotation. It was one that Christopher Hitchens read out at the funeral of his own father. He chose it for its “non-religious yet high moral character”. That phrase sums Dad up. He was not a religious man. Whenever “Thought of the Day” came on he would immediately switch off the radio and play one of his numerous CDs. But he was a man of the highest moral standards. Some of the words that occur again and again in tributes sent to us are kind, lovely, generous, gentle, reliable and caring. Dad was all of those things and more. I can only hope that Dad has passed on some of these characteristics to me. You can confirm for yourselves that I have inherited from him the infamous Hazlehurst receding hairline. I have sadly not inherited Dad’s great aptitude for running, but we spent many happy hours watching and talking about sport that I shall forever cherish.
So to conclude, here is Philippians Chapter 4, Verse 8:
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
Last month, with the antics of the honourable member for Mid Bedfordshire providing a useful distraction, the House of Commons passed a bill that outlined several radical changes to the structure of the NHS. Most dramatically it removed the duty of the Health Secretary to directly facilitate the provision of healthcare, which had been the backbone of all previous NHS legislation (compare section 1 of the current bill, here, with that of the 2006 NHS act, here). This simple measure, at a stroke, removes what makes the NHS the NHS: the provision of healthcare nationally through one organisation accountable to the democratically elected Government.
Making the administration of the NHS more independent of the government, which has under successive administrations, used the NHS as a political football, compromising the stability of the service, and increasing local accountability, where the issue of healthcare provision can be considered independently of other political concerns, is not in and of itself a stupid idea, but the devil’s in the detail. It is clear that privatisation, rather than democratisation and independence, is the main motivation behind the changes, with no democratic mechanisms included and ripe opportunities for extended private sector involvement.
This opening clause, sets the scene for the rest of the bill which outlines what it’s author, health secretary Andrew Lansley, envisages to replace the current system: healthcare commissioned, from a variety of providers, by a series of consortia, ostensibly controlled by local GPs. This detail is a little bit of PR genius. The public in general like and trust GPs, who currently work well as independent providers within the NHS. The reality of course, is that most GPs will not have the time, skills or inclination to take on a whole new range of administrative functions and many, if not most, will outsource the commissioning functions to outside bodies, and plenty of private companies are waiting in the wings to take up this role. The services “bought in” by consortia, will not be limited to those provided by the NHS. In fact legal advice, obtained by the campaigning organisation 38 Degrees, suggests that the new arrangement will be subject to EU competition law with multiple providers competing for contracts on the basis of commercial law. Both commissioning and provision will thus be transferred, on a large scale, to the private sector.
Let’s be clear, this country will continue to have universal, free at the point of use healthcare, and it may be that most patients won’t really notice the difference, a slight degradation of services here, where providers are dictated by competition not by expertise, a loss of provision there, where private companies skim off profitable services leaving unprofitable ones like, mental health, and emergency care, with depleted funds. Nevertheless, the bill represents a further encroachment of profiteering businesses into the NHS. Health care policy, over the past 30 years, has been driven by the big lie that publicly provided healthcare services are intrinsically less efficient and less effective. In fact the British NHS is one of the leanest systems in the world, doing more for less than anywhere else. This has lead to the internal market and various other “choice” and “competition” initiatives, each one adding a new layer of bureaucracy, diverting scarce funds away from patients and towards political vanity projects. This latest bill provides allows Andrew Lansley’s associates in the healthcare industry to profit at the expense of patients and the taxpayer and that is the greatest tragedy.
All is not lost, however. The bill may have passed through the Commons, but it still has to go through the House of Lords. With that in mind, the TUC has created an initiative called “Adopt a Peer,” whereby you are assigned a member of the House of Lords to write to. I was assigned Lord Collins, of Highbury, and wrote him the following letter:
Dear Lord Collins
I’m writing to you about the Health and Social Care Bill, which is currently being considered in the House of Lords. As you are probably already aware, it makes a number of substantial and possibly irreversible changes to the fabric of the NHS. In particular the bill makes changes in its very first section, removing the duty of the Secretary of State for Health to facilitate the provision of healthcare as codified in the 2006 NHS act and prior legislation. It also fragments commissioning roles amongst a number of bodies from where it will almost certainly end up in the private sector. This fundamentally compromises the principles of the NHS as well as being detrimental to service users, diverting scarce funds to profit making companies.
As a Labour Peer, I imagine that you will be opposing the bill. What measures can be taken by the Lords to oppose its passage? Neither of the Governing parties have a mandate to make changes this radical, with the Liberal Democrats having campaigned on a platform diametrically opposed and the Conservatives not having been upfront about these plans prior to the election, with their leader promising “no more top-down reorganisations of the NHS” and that the NHS was safe in their hands.
Yours,
Hannah Dadd.
To which he replied, with impressive promptness the very next day:
Dear Hannah,
Many thanks for your email regarding the Government’s Health and Social Care Bill which has now commenced its journey through the Lords stages of parliamentary procedure. I apologies for the delay in responding but I was heavily involved in the Labour Party Conference which took place in Liverpool last week.
Labour has always been clear that the proposed changes to the NHS envisaged by David Cameron, Andrew Lansley, and the coalition government are unnecessary, reckless, wasteful and bureaucratic. On top of this, the Bill goes against the coalition’s own promise, of only last year, for there to be “no more top-down reorganisation of the NHS”. They have no mandate for the changes they are planning.
Despite the pause and the Future Forum’s report, the Bill still contains the essential elements of the Tories’ long-term plan to set the NHS up as a full-scale market based on the model of the privatised utilities. That’s why so many experts still oppose the Bill.
I can assure you that Labour members of the House of Lords are committed to doing whatever we can to protect the NHS from the proposals in this Bill. Firstly we will try to stop the Bill in its tracks by voting against it at its Second Reading. Sadly, because the Lib Dems and Conservatives will vote together to keep the Bill, we are unlikely to succeed.
Over the next weeks and months, I and my colleagues will endeavour to make changes to the Bill in order to limit its damage to the NHS and improve the Bill. But we can’t do it on our own. We can only do this by building our own coalition. That means persuading independent crossbenchers, Lib Dems and Tories to vote with us on those key amendments. For that we need 80 peers from other benches to vote with us.
That’s where we need your help. Please contact crossbenchers and Lib Dems in particular to ask for their support. Without them Labour peers cannot limit the damage that this Government will do to the NHS. Please visit http://www.parliament.uk for full details of these Peers including email addresses.
Best wishes,
Ray Collins
Lord Collins of Highbury
What more encouragement could be needed? Sign up to “Adopt a Peer” and pay particular attention to Lib Dem and crossbench peers. Also, those who are enclined, can come along to the protest, on Westminster Bridge, on Sunday.
If you want to hear my dulcett dones on the Pod Delusion discussing House of Lords reform, I’m featured on their latest show here. It starts about 29 minutes in.
Paperback Rioter 