Rene Kinzett

Abolish this kangaroo court

August 24th, 2010 by René Kinzett

This post first appeared on WalesHome and is an update to my previous post on the subject

THE case of Cardiff Liberal Democrat councillor John Dixon has highlighted yet again the mess of the bureaucratic and undemocratic local government standards regime here in Wales.

The office of the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales has been in existence since 2006 and it is charged under the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2005 to investigate breaches of the Code of Conduct by members of local councils in Wales. Before the PSOW came into existence, it was the Commission for Local Administration in Wales which had the duty to investigate complaints against elected members. The Local Government Act 2000 introduced the Code of Conduct of Local Government Members and it is under this code and its rules of expected behaviour by elected members that so many councillors are now being investigated.

The Code of Conduct should have been worded to prevent the kind of bullying, abuses of power and damn near corruption that has in the past blighted some of our local councils. Instead, the vague, catch-all language has been misused by citizens with a grudge, politicians with thin skins and incompetent council officers to try to gag, bully and emasculate elected councillors up and down the UK. Anyone can make a complaint about any councillor; you don’t have to live in the ward/division or even the local authority area that the councillor serves. You can be a fellow councillor who has taken umbrage at something said in the Council Chamber, the press or in a leaflet. You can be a resident who does not like the fact that the electorate chose someone other than their favoured candidate. You can even be a phenomenally wealthy group of individuals who believe that:

75 million years ago a tyrant named Xenu ruled the Galactic Confederation, an alliance of 76 planets, including Earth, then called Teegeeack.

To solidify his power, Xenu instructed his loyal officers to capture beings of all shapes and sizes from the various planets, freeze them in a compound of alcohol and glycol and fly them by the billions to Earth in aircraft resembling DC8s. Some of the beings were captured after being duped into showing up for a phoney tax investigation.

One might think that John Dixon’s tweet, that he hoped the “stupid” wouldn’t rub off on him as he passed a Church of Scientology, may have been a wise and protective mantra. One may also charitably believe that his remarks may have been insulting to the Scientologists and their frankly – for most of us – leftfield set of beliefs. However, what on earth is this to do with an unelected and unaccountable bureaucrat? If the content of the tweet was libellous, then let the Church of Scientology muster their considerable wealth and sue Cllr Dixon. If the tweet was likely to cause a breach of the peace or else fell foul of the various incitement or other criminal laws, then let the police investigate the matter.

However, it was left to a complaint (by the Church of Scientology) to the “whingers post box”, AKA the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales. Don’t get me wrong, there is most definitely a need for an office to investigate claims of maladministration brought by members of the public who feel that the local authority, the local NHS or other public bodies have not followed procedures properly or else have shown them extremely poor levels of service. But why do we need a whole raft of public servants to investigate the bizarre claims of politically-motivated individuals who, not content with losing the argument at the ballot box, want to try to undermine elected representatives via the Code of Conduct?

The Code of Conduct for Local Government was a knee-jerk reaction by the previous Labour Government. The aim may have been to prevent corruption, to ensure that elected councillors did not misuse or abuse their positions in terms of offering help to applicants for lucrative planning schemes and so forth. But the provisions of the Code and the resultant investigative apparatus (in Wales the PSOW and Standards for England the other side of Offa’s Dyke) take this well intentioned proposal and has turned it into a Kafkaesque nightmare, where elected officials can have their every utterance taken down and used against them in some quasi-judicial process. A process which defies rules of natural justice and denies defendants the usual protections of a tribunal, including the denial of the right to confront one’s accusers in public forum. Indeed, in a recent decision concerning the accusations levelled against 32 members of the opposition on Swansea Council, the PSOW wrote to the accused telling them that while the proceedings has been dropped, the case would be kept on file and would be taken into account and used against any member should further allegations be made against them.

Before the John Dixon case blew up and was even reported in The Times by Danny Finkelstein, I was wondering whether the Ombudsman had something of a fixation on Swansea, given the number of odd complaints the office has decided to investigate over recent years. Back in 2004, the Ombudsman investigated the nonsense claims against the leader of the Labour opposition for being beastly to the newly-elected LibDem-Con-independent administration during the first council meeting following the elections. More recently, my own comments regarding the age profile of Swansea Council has put me in hot water and I am now facing proceedings following the complaints from a Liberal Democrat and an independent councillor. Not only am I to face questioning as to whether I am guilty of age discrimination, but the use of the term “useless” to describe the performance of two less-than-successful Swansea Council cabinet members, has been judged to be unacceptable by the Ombudsman.

Why can we not get to a sensible situation whereby each local authority in Wales is given responsibility by WAG, perhaps through the new Local Government Measure currently being consulted on, to set up more powerful, visible and proactive standards committees? The current role of a standards committee on any of our 22 local authorities is to basically hear cases against councillors after the Ombudsman has investigated the matter and then only if he thinks that the standards committee is the right body to judge the matter. The standards committee does not write the Code of Conduct, it is not currently the recipient of complaints under the code and it has no power to investigate or consider any complaint against a councillor save for the direction of the Ombudsman. The committees have no real role in promoting good governance within their authorities and their make-up (with more “administration” members than opposition and the independent members appointed by majority voting by each council) can often lead to cries of “foul” by those judged harshly by the committee or else by those who feel undue leniency has been shown to others.

There seems to be a glimmer of hope on the horizon for the future of our local democracy. The Conservatives pledged to abolish Standards for England in their pre-election Green Paper on localism and decentralisation called Control Shift. The pledge has been reiterated by the Minister for Local Government Andrew Stunnell MP in the House of Commons. My hope, and indeed my public call, is that the Welsh Assembly Government and Westminster can agree to end the power of the PSOW to interfere in legitimate political debate as soon as possible by stripping it of the duty to investigate Code of Conduct complaints.

Tags [ Liberal Democrat, Local Government Act 2000, Wales ]

Categories [ Politics ]

Comments [ 0 ]

100 days and counting!

August 18th, 2010 by René Kinzett

The nation celebrated today at the joyous news that the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition Government had survived marked its first 100 days in office.

The first peacetime coalition government has come through an early Cabinet resignation; controversy over scrapping a pet project of the previous government; the intervention of the Sandal Brigade over “new” policy development and the question mark over whether the Deputy PM is “in charge” or “holding the fort” during the Cameron family’s fortnight on hols in Cornwall. All exciting stuff, but what do these last three and a bit months tell us about either the achievements of the Government or the future prospects for the Coalition?

Of course, the more observant will have noticed my deliberate mistake in the first sentence of the second paragraph. The Coalition Government is is not the first peacetime coalition administration on UK soil. The Scottish Parliamentary elections in 1999 and 2007 produced back-to-back Labour-Liberal Democrat governments and the National Assembly for Wales elections have resulted in “hung results” and there have either been minority Labour administrations or coalitions between Labour and the Liberal Democrats (2000 – 2003) or Labour and Plaid Cymru (2007, onwards). Each time during the period of a coalition, in both Cardiff and Edinburgh, the arrangements have lasted the course and seen the two parties through to the next set of elections. Indeed, the only times that administrations in Cardiff have looked week has been during the periods of Labour minority government. When Alun Michael was toppled as the first ever First Secretary of Wales, his successor Rhodri Morgan’s first act in office was to reach out to the Liberal Democrats to form a more stable administration until the next elections (and his second act was to change his job title to the more impressive “First Minister”).

In Scotland’s case, the incredibly stable arrangements between Labour the Liberal Democrats led to some interesting legislative reforms, including PR for local government elections and free personal care for the elderly. No matter what one may think of the shortcomings of the various measures enacted under that coalition, no one can doubt that it was a well managed and efficient operation, even in the face of some tough times and fierce criticism. It is only now, with a minority Scottish Nationalist Party Government in power in Holyrood that questions are being raised about the longer-term stability of an administration. As Jack Straw said today, it is perhaps preferable to be in opposition than scrabbling around for votes and with the ever-present fear of defeat hanging over you.

Given the experiences of our Welsh and Scottish cousins, what weight should be given to the soothsayers predicting calamity for the Coalition at Westminster? I rather suspect that they will be proved wrong. The signs of unity within the Coalition are clearly visible and appear to be very strong indeed. There is a unity of purpose, aided by the Coalition Agreement, which gives a clear agenda for the Government. The memorandum issued by Cameron and Clegg the other week also shows that the number one concern facing the Coalition – the size of the budget deficit – is being pursued with vigour and in real partnership. The spirit of unity within the Coalition is also helped by a palpable “bond of trust” between the Prime Minister and his Deputy. Much nonsense can be written (and frequently is) about the Cameron-Clegg axis, from the psycho-babble of the Sunday supplements (all the “we’re all Clegerons now” lifestyle article rubbish) to the loud alcohol-fuelled rants of former high-fliers with a fixation on homo-erotica. But its not all pure Polly Filler drivel or Pub Landlord bile, there are serious criticisms of the Coalition, from both left and right, that we (who care for its future) need to take on board.

The right are concerned about the future direction of the Conservative Party, that “traditional” values are being drowned out by a soggy liberalism and that Ministers are weak-minded pawns of the all powerful cult of the Cleggeron. I find the criticisms from these quarters as, frankly, a bit rich. One only needs to look at the experiences of the left of the Party during the worst excesses of the Thatcherite purges to see how an all-powerful leadership can effectively silence and sideline a whole wing of a party. Ask our friend Jerry Hayes for a first-hand account from one who remained a vocal and popular exponent of an alternative vision of conservatism during Thatcher’s reign.

I also want to reassure the right that they really have nothing to fear from Cameron and Coalition. For what we are witnessing is nothing less than the strange rebirth of liberal conservative England (with apologies to George Dangerfield) and the Conservative Party returning to its traditional place as the champion of moderate, considered and pragmatic polices. Championing evidence-based policy making over policy-based evidence making. Dealing with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. Treating all communities equally, with tolerance and respect. Governing in the interests of the nation, not the Party. Indeed, it is the mix of election winning strategies from Disraeli, through Baldwin and Churchill, from Macmillan to Major. Even Thatcher, who the right hold up as their patron saint, would be on the modernising wing of the Party if she was now a young politician on the rise. For her legacy, although objectionable to some, was a product of its time and she a creature of her surroundings. Transplant the young Maggie to today’s scenario and you would not get a hair’s breadth between her and Cameron or, dare I say it, even Clegg. The rejection of ideology, the embracing of pragmatism and the rethinking of traditional One Nation values through the Big Society theme are all part of Cameron’s agenda to take the Conservatives back to the future and to firmly re-establish ourselves as the natural party of government.

The rolling back of the Surveillance State (as big an enemy today as the excesses of the Welfare State tackled by Thatcher), the triumph of liberty over suspicion and the reawakening of a spirit of responsibility and inter-dependency are all, for my money, the most exciting things to come out of this Coalition thus far. From scrapping ID cards, getting rid of the National Identity Register, abolishing the “ContactPoint” child database and even the outlawing of the clamping of cars on private land are welcome early initiatives from the Coalition. The revolution in terms of school organisation with the introduction of Free Schools, bringing real choice and diversity of provision into every community (in England only, sadly), is to be much celebrated by those that matter: parents and children and opposed by the vested interests of the teaching unions, and Labour (and possibly even Tory or LibDem) local government barons. Ken Clarke’s sensible hand on the tiller as Lord High Chancellor will ensure a more just and equitable administration of justice that we’ve seen from a hoard of reactionary and populist Labourites. NHS reforms, led by the eminently fair-minded Andrew Lansley will replace bureaucratic mess with simple, streamlined administration of our health service and put it back in the hands of doctors and patients. Clegg himself has been given the task of dragging our creaking constitution into the 21st Century, renewing trust between the governed and the government, establishing a more democratic Upper House, offering the voters the chance to chose a new electoral system and handing back powers from Whitehall to town and shire halls.

I was also interviewed on BBC Radio Wales “Good Morning Wales” programme at the ungodly hour of just gone 6am, so for those not wide-eyed enough at that time of the day, or else don’t have ready access to the delights of the public service broadcaster for Wales, please feast your ears on this and listen in from 8min 10sec.

As much as I am, obviously, greatly impressed with the clear purpose, conduct and future prospects of the Coalition, I do feel that there is most definitely a role for the progressive wing of the Conservative Party to keep a watch on developments, especially as we head towards the spending review announcements planned for the autumn. Organisations such as the Tory Reform Group (for which I serve as Deputy Chair in Wales) will need to keep a close eye on the effects of cuts in public spending on the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. At the very start of this Coalition and during the election campaign, Cameron pledged that it would be those with the “broadest shoulders” who would bear the brunt of the cuts and that the very poorest would be protected from the worst effects. Policies such as limiting public sector pay freezes to those who earn over £21,000 are laudable, but it won’t be until sometime into next year that much of the impact of spending decisions will be felt. It will then be for the Tory Reform Group and others to be less the Cameron Cheerleading Team and more critical friend, watching out for the poor, the sick and the old. Ensuring that our guiding principles remain in tact and that the Coalition stays the course until the general election of 2015.

The Coalition has some real challenges to face. Next year’s referendum on electoral reform; the elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly; the legislative battle over equalising constituency sizes; and the reforms to the calling of general elections through Commons votes of no confidence, all offer early and serious pitfalls. However, if the same degree of common purpose and commitment to the national interest remains as strong, there can be little to doubt that this Coalition will stay the course and really change Britain for good.

Tags [ Cleggeron, Coalition, Conservatives, David Cameron, Liberal Democrats, Margaret Thatcher, Nick Clegg, Thatcherism, Tory Reform Group ]

Categories [ Conservatism, Government, Politics, Uncategorized, Wales ]

Comments [ 3 ]

Scientologists, stupidity and old duffer councillors

August 5th, 2010 by René Kinzett

The case of Cardiff Liberal Democrat Councillor John Dixon has highlighted yet again the mess of the bureaucratic and undemocratic Local Government Standards regime.

John Dixon’s tweet may have been insulting to the Scientologists and their, frankly, bizarre and cranky set of “beliefs”, but what on earth is this to do with an unelected and unaccountable bureaucrat? If the content of the tweet were libelous, then let the Church of Scientology muster their considerable wealth and sue Cllr Dixon. If the tweet was likely to cause a breach of the peace or else fell foul of the various incitement or other criminal laws, then let the police investigate the matter.

However, it was left to a complaint to the “whingers post box”, AKA the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales. Don’t get me wrong, there is most definitely a need for an office to investigate claims of maladministration brought by members of the public who feel that the local authority or other public bodies have not followed procedures properly or else have shown them extremely poor levels of service. But why do we need a whole raft of civil servants to investigate the bizarre claims of politically-motivated individuals who, not content with losing the argument at the ballot box, want to try to undermine elected representatives via the Code of Conduct.

The Code of Conduct for Local Government was a knee-jerk reaction by the previous Labour Government. The aim may have been to prevent corruption, to ensure that elected councillors did not misuse or abuse their positions in terms of offering help to applicants for lucrative planning schemes and so forth. But the provisions of the Code and the resultant investigative aparatus (in Wales the PSOW and Standards for England the other side of Offa’s Dyke) take this well intentioned proposal and has turned it into a Kafkaesque nightmare, where elected officials can have their every utterance taken down and used against them in some quasi-judicial process. A process which defies rules of natural justice and denies defendants the usual protections of a tribunal, including the denial of the right to confront one’s accusers in public forum. Indeed, in a recent decision concerning the accusations levelled against 32 Members of the Opposition on Swansea Council, the PSOW wrote to the accused telling them whilst the proceedings has been dropped, the case would be kept on file and would be taken into account and used against any Member should further allegations be made against them.

Before the John Dixon case blew up and was even reported in The Times by Danny Finkelstein, I was wondering whether the Ombudsman had something of a fixation on Swansea, given the number of odd complaints the office has decided to investigate over recent years. Back in 2004, the Ombudsman investigated the nonsense claims against the Leader of the Labour Opposition for being beastly to the newly-elected LibDem/Con/Independent Administration during the first Council Meeting following the elections. More recently, my own comments regarding the age profile of Swansea Council has put me in hot water and I am now facing proceedings following the complaints from a Liberal Democrat and an Independent Councillor. I have written in more depth about this matter over on Wales Home.

There seems to be a glimmer of hope on the horizon for the future of our local democracy. The Conservatives pledged to abolish Standards for England in their pre-election Green Paper on localism and decentralisation “Control Shift”. The pledge has been reiterated by the Minister for Local Government Andrew Stunnell MP in the House of Commons. My hope now is that the Welsh Assembly Government and Westminster can get talking about ending the power of the PSOW to interfere in legitimate political debate as soon as possible.

Tags [ Cllr John Dixon, Local Government, Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, Scientologists, Standards, Swansea, Tweets ]

Categories [ Government, Local Government, Politics, Wales ]

Comments [ 1 ]

Rowan Williams Conferred the Freedom of the City & County of Swansea

July 31st, 2010 by René Kinzett

Speech by Councillor René Kinzett, Leader of the Conservative Group, City & County of Swansea, in the Guildhall Council Chamber, Swansea, on the occasion of the conferring of the Freedom of the City & County of Swansea on the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, Saturday 31 July 2010…

Your Grace, Lord Mayor, Lord Lieutenant, High Sheriff, My Lords, Distinguished Guests.

It gives me great pleasure to support the motion that the City & County of Swansea confers the Honorary Freedom of the City & County of Swansea on The Most Reverend and Right Honourable The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England and Metropolitan, Dr Rowan Williams.

Your Grace:

We are truly honoured and humbled at the conferring of the Freedom of the City upon you this day.

This is an honour for Swansea, and one that the whole city will want to rejoice in: that a Dynevor schoolboy can return to this Hall as the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of All England. The first Welshman to succeed St Augustine of Canterbury and the first Archbishop to be appointed from outside the Church of England since the mid-thirteenth century.

The importance of the written record and history is not lost on Your Grace. We visited your London residence, the historic and beautiful Lambeth Palace to see the Treasures of Lambeth Exhibition. Reading King James I’s own hand written commentary, in the margin of a book rejecting the case being made for greater religious tolerance, we know that history will record that Your Grace was thankfully at the fore of promoting tolerance, understanding and cooperation amongst the religions and peoples of this world.

What also struck me about the Exhibition was the diversity of the collections held at Lambeth. Not just the history of the church, or of Christianity or other religions, but of wider social, political and international affairs. History will also record that Your Grace is, thankfully, not unknown in terms of his own contributions to debate on domestic and international issues.

Today’s commentators may take issue with what they see as “controversial” positions taken by Your Grace, but such analysis is often based on misunderstandings or deliberate mischief making. The future archives of Lambeth Palace will, no doubt, provide historians with a fascinating glimpse of your time as Archbishop.

The pride that the people of Swansea take in seeing a son of the City holding such high office is reflected in today’s conferring of the Freedom, an honour Your Grace richly deserves.

Lord Mayor, I support the Motion.

Tags [ Archbishop, archives, Canterbury, Council, history, Rowan Williams, Swansea ]

Categories [ Miscellaneous, Uncategorized, Wales ]

Comments [ 0 ]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

July 27th, 2010 by René Kinzett

The case of Pc Harwood and Ian Tomlinson makes this Liberal Conservative very unhappy indeed. Since the days of regular “police brutality” cases in the 1970’s and early 1980’s, the standards of policing, the professionalisation of the constabularies and the improved level of official and media accountability, we have come to expect certain levels of behaviour from those we pay to hold the office of a fully attested constable.

Since the Damian Green arrest at the end of 2007 and the G20 protests of 2009, many questions have been raised about the nature of policing in Britain. The scenes at both the incident which preceded the death of Mr Tomlinson and the subsequent handling of a memorial gathering, were reminiscent of police behaviour in a Cold War Eastern European dictatorship. It may seem like a small matter, but even the dress of the modern police constable in the UK seems to be getting more paramilitary, even when not in full “riot gear”. The traditional form of British policing seems, as in previous depatures from the founding principles of a civial police force, to have been broken on the baton of a new breed of rather exuberant officers keen to demonstrate rather too literally the strong arm of the law.

The unravelling details of the case now point to the Pc who struck Mr Tomlinson to the ground, Pc Simon Harwood, had a rather less than exemplary record. The pathologist the CPS cited as having given them cause to believe that a successful prosecution against Pc Harwood would be unlikely is, himself, under investigation relating to serious complaints about his findings in other cases. Dr Julian Lewis, the Conservative MP, challenged the Attorney-General, Dominic Grieve, on this latter point in the Commons yesterday. Whichever way one cuts this chain of events, the rubber stamp given by Grieve to the CPS for having acted with “complete propriety in investigating this matter” appears a little generous.

At least now there is the prospect of a disciplinary investigation by the Met against Pc Harwood. The Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, seemed rather more than sympathetic with the public concern about the lack of action against Pc Harwood when he told the Home Affairs Select Committee this morning, that:

“I do fully understand the Tomlinson family and public sense of anger having seen the video of the incident prior to the death of Ian Tomlinson.”

These may be trying and difficult times for those charged with maintaining the Queen’s Peace, but if this is being done in such a way as to alienate the Bobbies from the public, then these efforts will be counter-productive. The concept of British policing is based on one of “policing by consent” and systems of accountability and regulation have been well developed since the Metropolitan Police were created by Peel in 1829. However, increased powers given to police under anti-terrorism laws, the potential for misuse and abuse becomes heightened and attitudes and cultures from senior officers through to the rank and file will be seriously affected.

As a committed conservative, I am sceptical of the state and suspicious of the exercise of power. It has sometimes been seen that the duty of the “conservative”-minded citizen to support the police, right or wrong. All good conservatives must now stand back and re-examine our attitudes towards policing in the UK, to ensure that we create a constabulary that is more professional, more accountable and more in-touch with its founding principles.

Tags [ Ian Tomlinson, PC Harwood, Sir Paul Stephenson ]

Categories [ Miscellaneous ]

Comments [ 3 ]

The power of words

July 26th, 2010 by René Kinzett

Have had a very busy few weeks of work, preventing me from blogging as much as I would like, or indeed should given the generous hosting of my words by the lovely people at Think Politics.

In writing my grovelling apology of an opening sentence, I was struck by the importance of words and the power of the written record and had something of a Eureka moment. So this blog entry will be as much about the stuff I’ve been involved in over the past couple of weeks, as it is a political commentary on the power of archives.

My day job outside of politics is as Head of Public Affairs for the new Archives & Records Association, the body which seeks to give voice to the professional archivist, the users of archives and the providers of many of the archival services across the UK and Republic of Ireland. One of the best aspects of this job is the places and people I get to see and meet. Last week I visited the Treasures Exhibition at Lambeth Palace. Set out in the Great Hall of the Palace were several glass display cases, temporarily hosting some of the most remarkable books, letters, diaries, photographs and other artifacts and archival items kept by Lambeth Palace Library. A book by a Catholic priest pleading the case against the King’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon, Henry VIII writes in his own hand that the arguments are false. You can almost see his rage in the neatly penned lettering in the right-hand margin. Another book imploring King James I to show religious tolerance has a note in the margin from the monarch stating that such leniency had been shown in Elizabeth’s time and that people who advocated the policy were now “prickles in our side”.

The celebration of our nation’s history through its archives had a second boost this month with a Parliamentary Reception in the Cholmondeley Room and River Terrace of the House of Lords. The Reception, hosted by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Archives, was presided over by historian and political scientist Lord (Paul) Bew and was addressed by (among others) academic and broadcaster Lisa Jardine and Arts Minister Ed Vaizey. The Reception launched the first ever UNESCO Memory of the World UK National Register, listing the top 10 items and collections of archival materials of major significance to UK culture and society. Top of the list was the first Charter of King William I to the City of London, granted in 1027. The Register also includes the film “The Life Story of Lloyd George” and the Peterloo Relief Fund Account Book, which includes desciptions of the “massacre” at the anti-Corn Law Rally of 1819.

The week just gone ended for me with a visit to Belfast, my first ever visit to Northern Ireland and, I hope, far from my last. I really enjoyed my two nights in the city, including a trip to the recently refurbished Ulster Museum, which beat the Bodleian to the coveted Art Fund Prize. Belfast is itself a city rich in history – and it is written in its buildings (the City Hall is magnificent, a real testimony to the pride of being declared a city by Queen Victoria), in its archival collections and in on its walls. As part of my visit I was thrilled to be offered a personal tour of the murals of Belfast by Lord Bew, someone more used to taking journalists and camera crews around the area. The murals are amazing to see first-hand, the colours, the imagery, the slogans and the sheer skill of the artwork itself are all very powerful and strangely affecting. They seem at once both anachronistic and threatening. The declaration on one mural facing people arriving in one neighbourhood that one is “Entering a Loyalist Area” is literally arresting – it stops you in your tracks and you almost feel yourself reaching for some form of ID to declare your support, or at least diplomatic neutrality. The murals in Nationalist West Belfast (where, Paul Bew told me, 4 out of 5 of the people we saw walking by probably voted for Gerry Adams) were more complexly political, with a mix of trade unionist messages, international politics (Gaza featured heavily) and nakedly party political (flattering portraiture of Adams). As we made the very short drive back to “metropolitan Belfast”, it made me wonder how such a small collection of neighbourhoods in a tiny part of a small nation could have held such sway over national UK politics, ruined lives and affected Anglo-US relations for such a long period of time. Which is why the words and images on the sides of those small houses in Belfast need to be recorded and preserved for future generations to explore, study and, one hopes, learn from. The Ulster Museum had an excellent part of its exhibition on Belfast dedicated to The Troubles and the murals form an important archival heritage for the people of Northern Ireland.

This week will take me to Edinburgh and my second visit to the National Archives of Scotland, with the rest of the week working at home in Swansea, including a visit to the City by the Archbishop of Canterbury, a native of Swansea who is coming to recieve the Freedom of the City. I hope to squeeze in something about my visit to his Palace in South London when I speak in support of conferring this honour upon him!

Tags [ Archives & Records Association, Words ]

Categories [ Miscellaneous ]

Comments [ 0 ]

Four health managers good, two managers better

July 13th, 2010 by René Kinzett

I am wondering if the current dynamic between Government and Opposition is a welcome return to an ideological, or at least an aggressively partisan, struggle in British politics. From schools shake up to plans to scrap a whole tier of bureaucracy in the NHS, the Coalition is set on a course of much needed reform, whilst the Labour Party seek to defend provider interest and the protection of managerial posts (huge numbers of which were created by the previous government), dressed up as concern for patients, pupils and parents.

Whilst Tony Blair sought to reform the public sector and try to embed the “what works, works” mantra across government between 1997 and 2007, it is now received wisdom that Brown was conducting a stalwart defence of the old bureaucratic top-down, provider-knows-best model of delivery. After two and half years of Brown at the helm of Downing Street, the effects of his ideological position on both the state of public services and the health of the Labour Party have now become clearly apparent.

The “shadow cabinet” (the sad and sorry looking bunch of failed secretaries of state who were given the Order of the Boot by the electorate in May, serving out this interregnum until Labour can chose its new leader in the autumn) have had nothing positive to offer in terms of policies and seek to oppose the coalition from a position of moral indignation, a healthy dollop of collective amnesia and good old fashioned socialist concern for Labour Party Members working in the public sector. The shadows forget, or try to forget, the two and a bit years of Brown in residence at Number 10 and seek to blame the rest of the world for Britain’s fiscal crisis. When Burnham says that plans to cut NHS bureaucracy make him want to “weep”, frankly it makes me want to vomit when I think about the profligate and selfish nature of a government headed by a PM who once revelled in the “Iron Chancellor” myth.

The NHS reforms outlined by Andew Lansley yesterday are an excellent case in point. The health budget is a “ring-fenced” area as agreed by the Coalition, but that is not to say that savings can be found in the hugely bureacratic delivery model, savings which can then be poured back into frontline services. For me, that is the essence of the White Paper – doing more for less. Indeed, this is the same motto used by the Minister for Health in the Welsh Assembly Government in a newspaper article for the Western Mail yesterday.

However, as in the rest of the country, the NHS in Wales is bloated, cumbersome and unresponsive to the needs of its patients. That is not to say that the care offered by nursing staff, doctors and consultants is not in most cases exemplary, rather it is the model of delivery and the explosion in managers at every grade which is at fault. The Royal College of Nursing has identified that NHS Wales currently spends more than £65 million on management across bands 8 and 9, but just £31 million is spent on nursing staff in the same band. To spend £34 million more on managers than on nurses by a health service provider is obviously unsustainable.

The plans to allow by 2013 500 GP consortia to spend £80 billion on the NHS across England and scrapping the Strategic Health Authorities and Primary Care Trusts all seem an excellent idea to create a modern and responsive health care service, free from the worst aspects of the monolithic NHS. When Labour ideologues proclaim that they “Love the NHS”, they are really saying that they are wedded to the organisation, not to what it delivers. I am comfortable in allowing doctors, nurses, consultants and surgeons to get together and plan the healthcare services for their communities. I am happy to see hospitals set up as independent corporations, in the same way that universities are run, free and independent from political interference and stultifying bureaucracy.

The proposals from the coalition on the future of health care in England show an inspired plan for excellence and localism. The huge disappointment for me is that it will not be introduced in Wales for so long as we have a Labour Government in power at Cardiff Bay more interested in jobs for the boyos than the health care of the nation.

Tags [ Andew Lansley, bureaucracy, Coalition, NHS ]

Categories [ NHS, Politics ]

Comments [ 0 ]

AV or bust?

July 5th, 2010 by René Kinzett

At the time of Brown’s (political) deathbed conversion to electoral reform, I urged Conservative MPs, even those (admittedly very few) who believed in electoral reform, to vote AGAINST the Bill to bring about a referendum on the Alternative Vote (AV).

Let me be clear. I oppose the current First-Past-The-Post system and I suppose some people would say that I should welcome any reform and embrace the proposals to move away from FPTP as being at least a ”step in the right direction”.

But, I am afraid to say, my view remains that the proposals for a referendum on AV is a sham and a missed opportunity for real reform. The Alternative Vote is a sham of a compromise. It does not tackle the fundamental problems associated with the current FPTP system and indeed embeds them further. The result of an AV election is not proportional to the votes cast across the country and the system offers no more choice to the elector and instead still invests most power with the political party machine.

For those keen on the “first step” to real reform and who are minded to press their MP to vote for an AV referendum, they should remember that the 1911 Parliament Act, designed as a temporary measure to allow the passing of the ”People’s Budget”, before more radical reform of the Lords could be brought forward, has been with us now for nearly a century.

Let us not go forward with a reform we will regret. I want to see real pressure applied to the leadership of my Party to support fair votes and to be persauded of the case for electoral reform as part of a wider agenda to return power to the people. I am hoping that the Liberal Democrats will at least bring forward an amendment to the AV Referendum Bill and propose that the question posed to the people is at least a choice between FPTP and AV+, which will at least bring about a more proportional result and create a more pluralist House of Commons.

Tags [ AV, Conservative, Electoral Reform ]

Categories [ Politics ]

Comments [ 0 ]

Clarke v Howard (and no prizes for guessing who I’m cheering on!)

June 30th, 2010 by René Kinzett

Clarke v Howard on the issue of crime and punishment has pretty much dominated the political news today.

Sitting back and enjoying the sounds of two big beasts slamming into each other is what politics should be all about. Clarke, the fearless champion of the cause of One Nation Toryism and the patron saint of the sartorially-challenged, up against Howard, the sharper, more elegant voice of the hard-right. No prizes for guessing who I’d be holding the bucket and sponge for in this fight. And its not just because I am an unashamed Tory Reform Group nut, but its also has a lot to do with the fact that Clarke is just so right on this issue.

On just so many counts Clarke had the better of Howard. Clarke made the obvious point that, despite the doubling of the prison population since he was Home Secretary some 17 years ago (April 1992 – May 1993), the fear of crime has not lessened and can still be a debilitating factor for vulnerable people, particularly the elderly and it continues to lead to isolation. Others have followed up Ken’s line of thought and have given some great statistical analysis of the efficacy of prison versus other sanctions in the criminal justice toolkit for dealing with offenders in the hope of reducing reoffending rates.

But it really comes down, in the end, to what one wishes to measure. If by the “efficacy” of offender management programmes you, like me, understand it to mean the reduction in offending, the rehabilitation of the offender and the gradual process of lessening the fear of crime, then you will no doubt be cheered by the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary’s words. If, however, you were to take the Howard view on life and believe that “prison works” on the basis that it is a “punishment”, then you will also probably also believe that the Daily Mail ought to replace the Sentencing Guidelines Council.

I was rather pleased with the quick but effective demolition job done on Howard’s time as Home Secretary by MaryRiddell over at the Daily Telegraph. The rapid gallop through the poor political judgement shown by Howard and the gaffes which occured during his time at the helm of the Home Office (the Department then in charge of prisons) is nearly as fun as when Ann Widdecombe quipped that her former boss had “something of the night” about him…a Google search about which led me to this rather amusing video!

Essentially, Ken Clarke has to take the lead in addressing the burgeoning prison population and the “value for money” question hanging over our criminal justice system. If sending a heroin-addicted offender off to a residential treatment centre makes him 43% less likely to reoffend and saves the taxpayer somewhere near to £200,000 in cost of the programme and the knock-on savings from dealing with far fewer victims, then surely Ken is right to turn Howard’s “prison works” ethos on its head.

Tags [ Crime, Justice, Ken Clarke, Micheal Howard, Offenders, Prisons ]

Categories [ Conservatism, Government, Politics, Uncategorized ]

Comments [ 6 ]

The first cuts….

June 22nd, 2010 by René Kinzett

The short period of time between the General Election and now has been littered with “watersheds” and “political landmarks and today’s Budget has given us yet another “historic moment”. However, the now almost familiar sight of the LibDem Leader sharing the Front Bench with Cameron and Osborne makes one wonder when the Labour Party will themselves grow bored of screaming “but you are sitting with the TOOOORIES” at the Liberal Democrats.

Sadly, about the only consistent theme of opposition from the Opposition to today’s Budget has been just that – a tired and rather tiresome attack that seems to rely on the fact that the LibDems MPs don’t actually know that they are in coalition with the Conservatives and that if only Labour MPs can shout loudly enough and go on about it enough then the poor hapless dears will wake up, see a Tory and run for the hills.

Another tactic employed by Labour MPs today was the “but we’re nicer than them” argument, a wheeze designed to get under the skin of the leftist elements of the LibDems. This involved a parade of Labourites slamming the Conservatives’ record in govenrment (ummmm….I’m trying to remember back then, too….) and then rather unconvincingly painting a picture of the Utopian landscape of the toppled Labour Government. The vetran LibDem MP Malcolm Bruce did try telling Labour MPs that they had 13 years to put through progressive and radical budgets but instead chose, in 1997, to give the rich the largest single Capital Gains cut than any previous government.

Now that everyone knows that Brown and Darling cooked the books prior to the election in terms of fiddling the growth figures, the arguments against making public spending cuts and adjusting taxation now seem even more hollow and knee-jerk than before. A public sector pay freeze, an end to middle-class benefits and a war on waste in government spending are all welcome developments, as is the rise in Capital Gains Tax (something which I called for before the Budget), a banking levy (again something I supported and was much derided for by some fellow Conservatives) and the gradual increases in the income threshold for the lower-rate tax band.

The VAT increase from 17.5% to 20% has, of course, been seized upon by the ghosts of the old regime as an outrageous attack on the poor and destitute. VAT has always caused political rows and, of course, a tax on goods and services paid by everyone at the same flat rate regardless of income does not strike one immediately as a “good thing”. David Cameron himself, before the election, attacked VAT as a regressive tax and the LibDems said that they would not be looking to raise the current rate of 17.5%, but stealthily avoided making that a policy commitment. Given the state of public finances and the other options for income tax changes and other fiscal measures, the VAT rise of 2.5% seems like the lesser of several evils to me.

What strikes me about the Budget process as a whole is the collegiate and rather consensual way that the Coalition Government is working, not just internally but also in its outward-facing relations. Businesses, trades unions, local government, charities and other groups have been engaged with and will continue to be engaged with by a Government that not only commanded the majority of the support of the electorate at the last election, but which, by its very nature, must govern in the wider national interest as opposed to narrow sectional interests.

Unavoidably, there has been much talk and “analysis” (made up round the table at lunchtime by lazy journos) of splits and “challenges” for the Coalition at the time of its first Budget, but the LibDems and Conservatives are serious political parties, both want to be able to offer the nation a better future and to improve the prospects for our economy, jobs and society. This project, unlike others built on the shifting sands of focus groups and media headlines, will stay the course.

Tags [ Budget, Coalition, Conservative ]

Categories [ Politics ]

Comments [ 3 ]