Labour values: ‘We can’t help everyone’

Emma Lewell-Buck just can’t help it. In today’s Shields Gazette she decried the emptiness of David Cameron’s tough words on the Calais migrants issue, without any suggestion of what she or Labour would do to resolve the problem.

Presumably no one has told her yet.

What irked me most was that the article showed a complete lack of empathy; not just in her own words, but in the visitor comments below the article.  The people in Calais are hoping for a better life; a job, opportunity, a chance for freedom, or a haven from persecution, violence or death.

So I commented:

It says everything about the pathetic state of Labour that the South Shields MP jumps on the anti immigrant bandwagon to keep the Labour leadership happy and at the same time attempt to appeal to BNP and UKIP voters. It is reassuring though that people like Emma Lewell-Buck and most of the commenters below are in the minority (particularly the charming den ‘final solution’ patton) and that most British people are actually decent, empathetic human beings.

To put it in perspective, we have a population of over 60 million, but there are around 3,000 migrants in Calais. We are also one of the wealthiest countries in the world so not only can we afford to support these people in difficulty, we should. Sadly Emma Lewell-Buck is part of a political-economic system which prefers to maintain the status quo which makes the poor poorer and the rich richer, and rather use these people in trouble as an opportunity for cheap political point scoring rather than actually improving lives.

Maybe we can’t help everyone. But we should try, and for an MP, it should embody the reason they went for the job in the first place: to help people. 

Anything else is a betrayal to Labour voters, and what were once Labour principles.

Where are South Tyneside’s Labour MPs?

This image is a snapshot of an alphabetical list from Hansard, of MPs who voted against the Tory Welfare Bill last night.

You’ll note that South Tyneside’s two Labour MPs, Stephen Hepburn and Emma Lewell-Buck are missing. That’s right, along with most other Labour Party MPs they failed to vote against a bill that the Tories will use to further hobble the welfare state and make the lives of people on low incomes in South Tyneside worse.

You would think MPs were there to vote in the interests of their constituents, but not these two. They voted for party before principle.

After the vote SNP MP Peter Wishart asked the speaker of the house if Labour could be moved to the back benches as they no longer represent an opposition to the Tories. He’s got a point; in the last year or so Labour has consistently voted in support of Tory economic policy.

If I was a Labour Party member in South Tyneside, today I would be asking myself some very serious questions. Is Labour fit for purpose? Does it still represent my values? Why did I waste my time canvassing for two losers who can’t vote to protect fundamental Labour principles?

Trow Rocks rescue

Long distance shot of a Seaking helicopter on a rescue at Trow Rocks, South Shields.

Letting people down

Three weeks after voting in support of the Coalition government’s ‘annual welfare cap’, South Shields MP Emma Lewell-Buck rails at the government’s poor performance in administering the Personal Independence Payment, or PIP for short.  Our MP raised in Parliament the plight of constituent Sue Martin, who has myalgic encephalomyelitis and has been waiting since July last year to find out if she qualifies for support through PIP to help with her illness.  In most scenarios, I would say job well done to our MP.

Sadly, Ms Martin is not alone in struggling with PIP and Disability Living Allowance claims, and will likely be joined in future by many other people struck by debilitating illness, frustrated with an inhumane bureaucratic system and a capped welfare budget pot.  This capped welfare budget will mean that different departments within the welfare system will compete with each other for a share of the budget.  If one welfare function is over budget, then funds can be taken from one department to top up the other department’s failing budget.  It doesn’t sound so bad, until you realise that people’s lives will depend on the political whims of ministers courting media attention and the competing interests of internal party political warfare.

Despite Emma Lewell-Buck’s plea over over PIP and her criticism of the government for ‘letting people down’, she voted for the very bill that could make life worse for people like Sue Martin, and other people who are unfortunate enough to need the safety net of the welfare system.

Running up the white flag to the Tories

“I’m going to be a different sort of MP“, she said.  When she was campaigning to replace David Miliband as South Shields’ MP, she played on the fact that she was local born and bred, with a deep Tyneside family history, and a social worker who knew the needs of and the difficulties facing the people of South Shields.

After safely winning the South Shields seat, Emma Lewell-Buck pluckily threw down the gauntlet to David Cameron, saying that he might need a lifeboat “after sailing HMS Coalition straight into the rocks, aided by his captain, George Osborne, and his cabin boy, Nick Clegg”.  Well, our South Shields MP has joined the crew of the not-so-good ship HMS Coalition.  Today, she voted with the Labour whip in support of the Coalition’s Charter for Budget Responsibility, otherwise known as the ‘annual welfare cap’, a cap on the overall level of spending in the welfare budget, excepting pensions and some jobseekers benefits.

It’s a nasty piece of legislation, another broadside in the Coalition’s dirty media war against those in receipt of benefits, and it seems, a war in which Labour wants to see some frontline action.  Unfortunately, Labour chose not to fight against the Coalition, but instead chose the easy target in a hunt for the middle England vote – against those in our society who are most in need, the poor and the unwell.  If Labour MPs wanted to distance themselves from the values of the creators of the NHS and the welfare state, they couldn’t have picked a more treacherous flag to run up their mast.

So is ensign Lewell-Buck a ‘different sort of MP’ for South Shields?  What better benchmark could we find than the late Tony Benn, whom she claimed for her was “an inspiring figure… because of his absolute dedication to his principles and his belief in the rights of working people.”  I find it difficult to believe that Tony Benn would ever vote for such a divisive policy, which in this time of savage austerity further victimises the poorest and most unfortunate in society, whilst the rich get richer.  If Lewell-Buck is a ‘different sort of MP’, it’s one that’s hugely different from Tony Benn, but remarkably similar to South Shields’ previous parliamentary disappointments, David Clark and David Miliband.

South Shields could as well have voted a Tory in, for all the difference it would have made.

Yes, Labour won South Shields

So what?  It was going to happen.  The UKIP claims of “giving Labour a bloody nose” were bloody stupid, typical Farage shouty bravado in the vain hope that someone will believe him.

Despite the pitiful 40 per cent by election turnout, Labour pretty much kept their share of the vote and held on to their percentage majority.  They managed this with actually very little campaigning.  Such is the nature of the confidence in South Shields’ electorate. 

UKIP got what they wanted: second place.  They put a lot of money into their campaign and bussed in supporters from outside the town, supporters who to their credit worked very hard, no matter how silly I think their politics are.  The result gives Farage a chance to claim that UKIP are now the second party in Britain.  Such a claim would be more than optimistic: UKIP are yet to get themselves in parliament.  In South Shields, they’re merely the new Tories on the block, and will likely see their vote drop at the General Election in 2015.

What should be remembered is that this was a by election, where sometimes the electorate throw the dice on a protest vote, but it looks like the only ones protesting were Tory and Lib Dem voters.

The way I see it, the top three parties in the vote are all tied to a neo-liberal economic model which values money over people.

It’s been a while since South Shields voted a left wing party into parliament.  I find that saddening.

Scraping the biscuit barrel

Jumping on the South Shields by-election bandwagon, UKIP have set up shop, in a shop, on King Street.  It’s tastefully decked out in posters and a couple of baloons.  Classy.  The shop was formerly a branch of Bay Biscuit Co, a now defunct Newcastle retailer specialising in broken and bargain biscuits.

Let’s ignore that UKIP’s position on climate change ignores the science.  Let’s ignore that UKIP’s position on equal marriage is as libertarian as the Pope’s.  Let’s ignore that UKIP representatives have a bad habit of failing to keep their promises.

The real question which voters should ponder in their analysis of the by-election candidate should be: if UKIP were a biscuit, what biscuit would it be?

Not Hobnobs, clearly that’s for the Tories, a party run by toffs.  Jammie Dodgers is more of Lib Dem biscuit, given their dodging tough decisions, their commitments and their principles.  Drifter seems designed for Labour, the party continually drifting from it’s original purpose.

No doubt a UKIP representative would consider a biscuit like a Breakaway, reflecting their desire to tear the UK from Europe.  Maybe Party Rings in a nod to South Tyneside UKIP councillor David Pott’s love for Bunga Bunga parties.  Or perhaps McVitie’s Gold  bars for UKIP’s nonsensical attachment to the gold standard.  I think maybe Jacob’s Odditities would be the most appropriate.  Or Jacob’s Crackers.

Or something with nuts in.

And the Member of Parliament for South Shields is…

South Shields Labour party has selected the next MP for the town, Primrose councillor Emma Lewell-Buck. Some would say I’m jumping the gun, but let’s be pragmatic. South Shields is about as safe as it gets for Labour.

The real competition in the by-election is going to be for second place, with UKIP trying to claim another media coup by scalping the Tories at the polls. This is a cynical approach to democracy which I find distasteful. It shows that there’s really no interest in the people of South Shields from UKIP, only a desire to suck in more publicity for the long haul, with an eye on 2015. South Shields has one UKIP councillor, David Potts (although he was elected as a Tory), a tweeting disaster zone, and his past could prove poisonous for a UKIP parliamentary candidate.

From what I’ve seen of Emma Lewell-Buck in the local press I’ve been impressed. She seems hardworking and involved with the people of the Primrose ward. She particularly impressed me as being the only Labour councillor to actually risk publicly criticising the BNP when they were trying to goose-step their way into Jarrow.

Coincidentally, a notification from South Tyneside Council Elections Office hit the doormat today, warning that “there is likely to be a Parliamentary by-election… the earliest date for which is Thursday 2nd May.” So, if you’re not registered to vote, get your finger out and contact South Tyneside Council and get sorted. I know I said the MP has already been selected, but, you never know…

Miliband–slipping away from South Shields

So, the MP for South Shields, David Miliband, has shuffled off to pastures new.

The media has concentrated on the alleged loss to the Labour project and British politics as a whole.  I suppose it’s a narrative you would expect from a Westminster centric media, where the universe ends at the M25.  I watched an interview on BBC News last week, where the BBC political editor talked to David Miliband and covered his career and his new job at the International Rescue Committee.  The highs, the lows, the bad haircuts.  South Shields was not mentioned once.

In the past I have had what best could be described as a mixed opinion of our MP here in South Shields. Sometimes I’ve been extremely critical, other times praising him.  I’ve tried to sit down and objectively consider his impact as an MP for South Shields.  It’s not easy.

I’ve never needed to rely on his assistance in his capacity as the Member of Parliament for South Shields.  Those who I know who have gone to David Miliband for help have found him to be attentive and sympathetic, and willing to lend a hand if he could.  When I’ve written to him with an enquiry, I have, apart from one instance, received a clear and timely response from his office.  I don’t think I ever liked his answers, but at least he answered.

A criticism often raised is that he didn’t spend a lot of time in South Shields, but then again few MPs do.  At least the time he has spent here has been well planned, with a full diary of events.  He’s been in the right places (mostly) and said the right things.

As an ambassador for South Shields he has, I think, played a positive role.  When he was minister at DEFRA he listened to the concerns of local environmental activists, and sought to bring local government together with environmental groups to exchange ideas.  He did this by holding a conference, here in South Shields, not in London.

He has championed local business and with the likes of Colman’s fish shop, help put them on the map, and deservedly so.  He has supported local charities and social initiatives like South Tyneside Credit Union (now Bridges Credit Union).

Although I’ve never attended the South Shields Lectures (except in a demonstration outside the event), I think they were an inspired idea by Miliband, bringing (albeit Labour) celebrities from politics and entertainment to the town to speak.  I hope whoever is the next MP for South Shields will continue this.

And at least he timed his departure to the favour of the South Shields Labour Party.  The previous incumbent, David Clark, deserted South Shields with such timing that the national Labour Party could parachute Miliband into one of the safest seats in the UK, sidestepping local party wishes.  Reading the comments of South Shields councillor John Anglin, it’s clear that the 2001 fait accompli still rankles:

“We want to make sure we are allowed to choose our own MP, something we have not done in living memory.”

His voting record has been what you would have expected from an architect of New Labour and someone who had served most of his time in government as a minister – loyal.  There have been times when he showed some heart, like his recent speech at the bedroom tax debate, and his liberal voting record on LGBT rights.

But those hints of a bigger person with a genuine vision were sparse.  The loyalty mentioned above has meant he has voted for some of the most shameful policies for a British government in my lifetime.  His support for the war in Iraq, the erosion of civil rights in the ‘War on Terror’.  His voting silence on the NHS devolution risk assessment and Workfare.  There is no way you could convincingly argue that he voted for the interests of the people of South Shields first and foremost.

In education, he championed the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) project and has often cited this as a Labour legacy.  Because BSF was a PFI project, it’s the kind of legacy that brings with it a debt to the people of South Tyneside that will haunt our children, with several decades of payments to the corporations that run the schools.  As we’ve seen recently with hospitals close to closing because of PFI debt, we can expect the same to come to our education system unless someone intervenes.

As Environment Secretary, he behind the publishing of the Climate Change Bill, which was what at the time looked like a remarkable and historic achievement: setting targets for the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.  Sadly, those good intentions have now dissipated in offsetting and corporate compromise.  The last ten years have shown that none of the three main political parties really take climate change seriously.

But in his role as Foreign Secretary is where I have the most concern, or rather, disgust.  The treatment of the Chagossian people at his ministerial hands is nothing less than shameful, playing his sordid part in a long government injustice in keeping the people of the Chagos Islands from returning to their homeland.  He was at the helm during extraordinary rendition and torture by our allies, and what admissions he made about the practices were imcomplete.  At least he suspended some arms export licences to Israel during the Operation Cast Lead attacks on Palestine.  Arguably though, those licences should never have been granted in the first place to prop up Israel’s military occupation of Palestine and accompanying land theft.  Nevertheless, you’ve got to admire Miliband’s gall for resigning from Sunderland over the club’s appointment of Paulo Di Canio.  Some lofty principles eh?

Miliband’s stint as Foreign Secretary should have been enough for a humanitarian charity like the International Rescue Committee to think twice about even shaking his soiled hands, not to mention consider him for their top job.  I’m wondering where the ethical compass for IRC is really pointing.

So it’s a bit of a mixed bag; some good stuff, some bad.  Very bad.  Is there a definitive conclusion?

Prior to skipping town, David Miliband didn’t do a bad job for South Shields, and his impact was probably a net positive.  And probably more so than his predecessor, who sat during one of the worst periods of South Shields’ history.  As a government minister, it’s not so rosy.  I’m not sure if I could have done those things, and then try to justify them to my children.  From here it seems that ethics came second to his ambition.  It’s the reason he came to South Shields, and the reason he left.  Maybe that one word, ambition, could define his tenure.

Killing in the name of column inches

Whenever there are terrible events like the murder of two police officers in Manchester this week, some people can go straight into emotional overdrive and self-righteous outrage.  Take South Shields’ Cleadon and East Boldon councillor Jeff Milburn, who told the Shields Gazette:

“I think the death penalty should be brought back and murderers put on death row like in America.”

“They could be on there for six, maybe 10 years, giving enough time for any information showing they were wrongly convicted to come to light.

For an experienced politician it seems a very immature and poorly considered response.  The US justice system is hardly a shining beacon for the rest of the world to follow, and its penal system is littered with miscarriages of justice ending in the executions of innocent people.  People with learning difficulties, mental illness and those convicted as children have been executed by a legal system that thirsts for vengeance.  There is no solid evidence to suggest that capital punishment has any impact in reducing murder rates.  So much so that execution is little more than a cynical political opportunity to satisfy public blood lust.

“We should get rid of people that murder.”

We should carry on imprisoning them.  The UK’s own past with capital punishment is a shameful one.  The Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven, the Birmingham Six: all examples of a justice system which failed, all examples of people who would have been victims of the hangman’s rope if capital punishment had not been repealed.

Death is the ultimate sanction.  A pardon after a trip to the end of the hangman’s rope is merely a gesture, and utterly meaningless to the victim.

It is impossible to have a legal system where the right person is convicted every time, or that a convicted person receives the right sentence.  A judicial system that uses capital punishment will at some point execute the wrong person, no matter how many genuinely guilty people are executed.  That is not justice, nor is it civilised.

I do agree with Coun Milburn on one thing though:

“Police officers do an outstanding job in very difficult circumstances. These two officers were no exception and their loss is a real tragedy.”

However, there is some irony at play here.  Coun Milburn is a member of the Tory party, which in government is cutting police numbers, whilst freezing their salaries and reducing the value of the pensions that police officers can expect at retirement.  In this context, such a tribute to public servants reeks of a politician’s hollow sincerity.