Bye Uppal, Hi Marris

Now I know what some of you are thinking. 'Vole', you're thinking, 'we all know that Paul Uppal was a devious, evasive, unpleasant character who had a very distant relationship with concepts such as honour, honesty, truth and the public good, was rarely glimpsed in the constituency and left no trace on public life other than a quite unpleasant symbolic skid mark, but tell us this: did you only doggedly track his undistinguished abuse of office because he was a Tory, and are you going to let his Labour replacement get away with all sorts of shenanigans?'

I'm very glad you asked me that, imaginary correspondent. The answer, of course, is no. I am a Labour Party member and I voted and campaigned for Rob Marris. I think he's a fundamentally decent man and he worked hard for the constituency when he was an MP. However, he much more rightwing than me and had a troubling history of total, slavish devotion to anything the New Labour administration did, including voting for the Iraq war. In fact my first interaction with Rob was enthusiastically writing to him after Blair made a speech explaining that Iraq was being invaded to promote democracy and women's rights. 'Brilliant', I wrote. When do we start bombing Riyadh?'. His reply was unamused and sadly unenlightening. I still don't know why Hussein's dictatorship had to be replaced at the cost of nearly a million lives so far whereas Saudi Arabia's much harsher one is supplied with as much money and weapons as it wants.

So in the spirit of continuing to harass my MP with idealistic bourgeois criticism, let's have a look at Rob Marris's first speech since losing his seat in 2005 shall we?

It doesn't start well. After the compulsory and perfunctory tribute to Paul Uppal, he has this to say:

I thank the voters … for electing me this year for the third time, and I have to say that it was a lot easier than it was five years ago, when I had the millstone of Gordon Brown around my neck.

Pretty graceless. But continue, Mr Marris.

The first myth of the two that I shall delineate is the Labour myth on the economy, which is that there was no problem with the economy when the world economic meltdown occurred in 2008 and that all our economic problems thereafter were due solely to world factors… Some of my colleagues may recall the Labour slogan for the 2001 general election, which was “an end to boom and bust”… That was brought forward by Messrs Brown and Balls. It was economic nonsense on none of my election material. It continued with the nonsense of the private finance initiative, which was a sleight of hand to disguise Government borrowing and, sadly, a sleight of hand that continued under the coalition Government.

The Labour Government continued with the nonsense of light-touch regulation and a Treasury Minister, one Ed Balls, boasting that Labour had become the financial capital of the world because we did not have the millstone of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

Now as it happens, I agree with an awful lot of what Mr Marris says in these sections and in the whole speech, but there's an awful whiff of 'who will bell the cat?' about it. In that story, the mice all agree that a lot fewer of them will die if they put a bell on the cat - but there are no volunteers to do the deed. Some of us in the Labour Party – including more prominent people than me, and a lot of MPs – offered a critique of New Labour's neoliberalism before, during and after the Blair and Brown years. Mr Marris was an MP from 2001-2010, a member of the Trade and Industry Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee. He says he 'made all the points I have just made to my then Labour colleagues' 'before the world economic meltdown'.

Oh yeah?

Not in public he didn't. Nor in Parliament unless he whispered them in dark corners. He voted through pretty much everything put in front of him by Blair, Brown and Balls, though he does deserve considerable credit for opposing the rise in tuition fees to £3000. He's very strongly for ID Cards and mass surveillance, crack-downs on immigration, against stronger gambling regulation.

Or is he? We just don't know. Perhaps he's happier in opposition and feels free to say what he thinks. Certainly this graceless – though accurate – attack on the absent Brown and Balls (I note that Mr Blair's role goes unmentioned) suggest either that he's off the leash or that he's quite happy to speak ill of the dead, a worm turned. I hope that he'll rediscover a set of political principles which guide him more strongly than the Whips' office.

In the meantime, I'll be watching and commenting. The difference between Marris and Uppal is that I was never convinced that Uppal acted in a spirit of good faith, whereas I do think that however wrong he'll be sometimes, Marris's motivation is the public interest. I've been blogging for a good while now and while I'm not egocentric enough to think that I represent anyone or am representative of much of the wider community, nor do I think that my MP should be taking political direction from me, but I do feel some sense of duty to provide a degree of scrutiny without regard for party loyalty. The real enemy is the Conservative Party, but I'm steeped in the syndicalist tradition which feared that political representatives would lose touch with their roots and citizens, seduced by the rituals, comforts and attractions of political life. The advent of social media like this is a means by which that distance can be bridged.

I think I'm actually quite lucky to have an MP like Rob Marris, which is why I worked for his election campaign in a very lowly fashion, but I'd urge you to keep an eye on what your MP is doing. Write to her or him, and help them see more of life than they otherwise might from the Westminster bubble. I might be a crank, but I'm sure you aren't.

Democracy in action: part II

Yesterday I emailed my prospective Labour Parliamentary Candidates about their platforms. You can read it here.

Today I got a reply from one of them. He misspelled my name and dropped some apostrophes, but as you can see, it's a pretty evasive response to my specific queries: so evasive as to constitute a f••• you, I feel.

Thank you very much for taking the trouble to write. I am looking forward to meeting all members of the CLP soon and engaging in robust face-to-face debate. This will be an excellent opportunity to set out my political stall and answer members questions and concerns. I trust that you will be an active participant in this process and hope we speak soon.
With best wishes Sundar Thavapalasundaram

Update: I got a reply from Mr Marris too (his responses are in red). Compare and contrast, then guess for which one I'm going to vote!

Presentation
I notice that Mr Marris provides a full Wolverhampton address and landline telephone number.  Don't worry, Rob:  I won't be popping round for a chat!   

Yes:  whilst I had the honour to be WSW MP, my home phone number was always in the telephone directory. 

Personal history
Mr Marris, you stress your long experience in the constituency, though you slightly gloss over losing the previous election, and you don't mention your work as a solicitor.  

There is no “glossing over”.  That I did not get re-elected is a matter of public record, known I believe every member of the CLP; including me, who now has to live in a constituency with a Conservative MP – something I spent a lot of time over many years trying to change. Whilst I am not currently practising as a solicitor, I remain qualified so to do.  I am employed by the National Union of Teaches as a Regional Officer. 

Political Positions
Mr Marris, you provide a long list of political principles, opposing privatisation, making the case for an empowering state, opposing student tuition fees, academies and free schools and deregulation, while supporting the nationalisation of railways, higher taxes for the rich, banking break-ups and so on.  I tend to agree with most of these positions.  However, I was a constituent while you were an MP.  I distinctly remember you voting for most of the things you now oppose.  Time and time again you behaved as lobby fodder for a government which established academy schools, curtailed civil liberties, introduced tuition fees (though you did oppose this), voted for one illegal and two foolish wars, strengthened NHS privatisation, deregulated the finance system, reduced taxation for the rich until very late on (and was 'intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich', failed to build social housing, oversaw the disastrous railway franchising scheme, and systematically weakened employees’ rights. I distinctly remember Mr Blair boasting about British workers having the least protection in Europe (the 'flexible' workforce).
So my worry is this, Mr Marris:  either you believed in what you did then, or you believed in what you say now.  Which is it?  Or perhaps you simply did what you were told, despite being a member of a massive majority.  If re-elected, will you simply follow the party line once more, or will you vote according to your principles?
I hope you see my quandary.  In Mr Marris we have a good, hard-working former constituency MP who enabled the worst excesses of the previous government and rarely displayed any independent principles, who now promises to oppose most of the things he supported.  

You suggest that “either you believed in what you did then, or you believed in what you say now.  Which is it?”  I am afraid that I do not accept much of the premise.  

Perhaps I may go through the list of policies in my letter to members, seriatim. 

equal opportunities, social inclusion, and co-operation 

The last Labour government passed the Equality Act 2010, the culmination of 13 years of progressive legislation on equal opportunities.  Before 1997, there was no legislation outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation, age, or religion.  

quality public services, delivered by workers employed by local/national government. 

The last Labour government did not protect this as they should have.  My position was always clear.  However, that undermining did not require legislation.  

strengthen employment rights 

National Minimum Wage.  Paid holidays.  Strengthened health & safety legislation.  Rights for sufferers of industrial mesothelioma.  Anti-discrimination laws (supra).  I personally (as the minister subsequently confirmed to me) successfully persuaded the government to abandon its plans to introduce a fee (introduced from 01.04.13 by the Coalition) for applications to Employment Tribunals.  

construction of huge numbers of council houses, which will also jump-start the economy 

The Decent Homes programme, costing £13 billion, improved hundreds of thousands of council houses.  About £250 million was spent in Wolverhampton.  Nevertheless, I agree that I did not do enough in this regard.  It was only in 2007 that I urged the government to buy one of the major house-builders, then valued at £2 billion, to get its hands on 100,000 building plots which the company owned.  

boost manufacturing and foster innovation 

The last Labour government introduced major tax breaks for R & D.   

tax the rich, to increase funding for health, education, transport, pensions, social care 

I did argue for higher taxes for the well-off and strongly and vocally supported the 50p tax rate.  I also argued against the abolition of the 10p rate.  

sound public finances 

The key Labour slogan in the 2001 General Election was “An end to boom and bust”.  You will search in vain for that slogan in any of my election material:  I wouldn’t use it, because I knew it is nonsense:  capitalism has been cyclical for 300 years, and nothing had changed. I am very knowledgeable about Canada.  I used to live there, and I still keep very much up-to-date.  The deficit was a major issue there in the mid-1990s.  So, as far as I know, I was the only Labour MP arguing that running a deficit in the good times was a bad idea.   

keep the NHS public 

I did not vote for the foundation hospitals legislation.  I abstained.  I would have voted against it, but I had only one e-mail (no letters or telephone calls) urging me to vote against.New Cross had £13 million of PFI (radiology) before I was elected in 2001; but none whilst I was MP.  Contrary to what some believe, the Heart & Lung Centre is not PFI.  With the other 2 Wolverhampton MPs, I vehemently and successfully opposed PFI at New Cross.  The PCT had entered into a £90 million PFI (for GPs surgeries, and the Phoenix Centre etc.) before they even told the local MPs. At the request of the Labour council, I reluctantly did write a letter in support of the £3 million PFI for the new swimming pool at Bentley Bridge; but that’s locally elected councillors making their own decisions – either one simply mouths support for “localism” and does nothing, or one does something.  Apart from that, I am not aware of any other council PFI. BSF was not entered into whilst I was MP, although it was agreed.  Again:  localism.  

restore powers to local councils, with proper funding 

I did argue at Westminster that, if one says one supports localism, then one must act accordingly (supra).  

return schools to LEAs, abolish academies and “free” schools 

I opposed the introduction of the “Blair academies”, but there was no legislation and so no vote. “Free” schools are a terrible invention of the Coalition.  I did vote for the legislation introducing Trust Schools, but only after uniting with other backbenchers to secure 2 concessions from the government:  a binding, national Admissions Policy, and am agreement on a national pay framework for Teaching Assistants.  

graduate tax, not tuition fees 

Yes, I voted against.  

opposition to privatisation and to PFI 

See above.  With others, I successfully opposed the privatisation of the Forensic Science Service.  

break up the big banks 

I was the only MP to move legislation allowing the government to break up the big banks.  Unfortunately, I could not persuade a Labour government to agree.  

opposition to de-regulation, no “light touch” 

Most of this de-regulation did not require legislation, so there was nothing against which to vote.  I did oppose the very concept in debates on Finance Bills, and spoke at length in the House about it, to the effect that, to me, “regulation” is not a dirty word.  

re-nationalise the railways, by not renewing franchises 

Again, no legislation, but again I called for it in the House.  

combat, and adapt to, climate change 

It is my Private Member’s Bill which led directly to the sections of the Climate Change Act dealing with adaptation; I believe the first such legislation in the world. I did not vote for the 80% cut in CO2 emissions because, although I strongly support massive cuts (and I was probably in the top 10 greenest MPs in the House, in terms of lifestyle), the 80% target was playing games, grandstanding – “pass this, looks good, problem sorted, and we can move on”.  It was and is totally unrealistic; just showboating.  As I pointed out in the House on more than one occasion, CO2 emissions per capita rose under Labour (until the recession, from 2008).   

promote green energy, not subsidise nuclear 

I and others repeatedly pressed the government to promise not to subsidise nuclear, and they publicly stated that they would not do so.  

social justice, here and abroad 

The international development agenda of Labour was magnificent. In the UK, not enough was done to tackle inequality, and I should have pressed harder on this. So, firstly the contradictions which you perceive are not nearly as great as you believe.  Secondly, if I simply stood now for exactly that for which I stood 12 years ago, totally unchanged, then I would be a poor human being and a poor politician. 

As you personally know, I was a pretty good constituency MP as well! 

The worm turns!

My MP, Rob Marris, is an excellent constituency MP. He answers letters, fights for his constituents and works hard. He's also an ultra-loyalist New Labour clone. He voted to cut benefits, go to war, to introduce ID cards and all the other terrible ideas introduced by the clique which captured the Labour Party.

Until now. He takes an interest in educational affairs, and is mightily (and rightly) infuriated with the government's decision to cut funding to institutions like mine. This is his letter to the Minister of State (who is also a local MP):

Dear Pat,

Funding for Universities

I understand that the government is proposing to cut funding for universities by £135 million. I do not have the details because, it seems, the Secretary of State rudely chose to make the announcement at a time when Parliament is not in session, apparently thereby seeking to evade Parliamentary scrutiny. That will not do, and it will not succeed. 

Realistically, our economy and our society cannot compete with low wage, low skills economies such as China and India. We must compete in an increasingly globalised world as a high wage, high skills economy. For the development of those skills, we rely massively on universities. Similarly with the funding of research, without discoveries and innovation, we will be in a weakened position in the world economy. 

We need those skills, and that research, to help us out of the recession, and to build for the future. The Prime Minister has repeatedly stressed this point, yet your department seems to be going in the opposite direction. I should be grateful if you, or one of your colleagues could explain to me what on earth is going on.

Yours,

Rob.

Basically, this is the parliamentary equivalent of calling the minister a wanker and inviting him outside. Well done Rob.

Some dreadful political puns

I haven't moaned about politicians for a few days. Why is Hazel Blears still employed, even though non-Ministers have been suspended from the Party for doing the same thing? Perhaps because he'd have to sack several other ministers too, and perhaps because she's vindictive enough to devote the rest of her career to undermining the Labour Party.

Have you noticed that the more rightwing the MPs are, the more corrupt they are? Rob Marris (though by my standards he's quite rightwing): innocent. Paul Flynn: innocent. Dennis Skinner: innocent. Hazel Blears, Geoff Hoon, Tories who charged us for 'duck islands' and moat cleaning: GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY.

There's a simple ideological reason for this. Being rightwing means privileging individualism. The appeal of the Tories and of New Labour is this: do whatever you can to get ahead, and we'll reward you. Everybody else is a loser. So naturally, corner-cutting and fraud is admirable under this system.

Socialism said: there's plenty to go round, so if we work together and look after each other, all our lives will improve.

So socialists don't steal from the citizens and capitalists do.

Pun time. The full details of MPs expenses aren't out yet. Did Bill Cash in? What did Ken Purchase? Did David Borrow? Did Liam Fox his constituents? Is Joan Humble? Were Greg Hands in the till? Does Sir Michael Lord it over us? Is Paddy Tipping a racist sport? When it came to negotiating with the fees office, did Jon Trickett? If so, did Derek Twigg? Was there a Steve Webb of deceit? Finally, was Tony Wright? Feel free to add more…

Ocean's Thirteen? Twice??

I wrote to my MP, Rob Marris, a couple of weeks ago. It's a harmless hobby, and makes me feel temporarily good about our democratic process. I specifically asked him to discuss MPs expenses and housing with the government and party hierarchy. I didn't say that they were all corrupt, or should sleep in cardboard boxes, but I did point out that the system was flawed and that ministers taking advantage of loopholes encourages everyone to believe that all politicians are on the take. I also warned against the dangers of developing a class of professional politicians who've never held any other kind of job. Rob Marris, who is too rightwing for me as a loyal New Labour member, but is honest, thoughtful and hard-working (for which he deserves re-election), sent me this reply. It's not exciting, but it's sensible.

Dear Aidan,

Thank you for your e-mail dated 6 April 2009.

Some of the expenses claims made by MP's from all parties seem pretty strange.

It will not surprise you to hear that I support the general proposition that MP's from outside London should not be out of pocket because, on average, we have to spend 2 or 3 nights a week, for about 35 weeks a year, sleeping in London. For the last 25 years, I have lived in the same house in Penn Fields. I do not live in London. I do not wish to live in London. However, I do have to sleep there, because of my work. That is why I claim (about half of) the London accommodation allowance.

I have spent most of my working life in the private sector, where my away-from-home expenses were reimbursed by the partnership for whom I worked.

However, the whole system of MP's additional accommodation expenses needs to be radically overhauled. It seems to me that there are two possibilities;

1. Set an appropriate amount, and include it in MP's basic, taxable pay;

or

2. Set an appropriate flat, daily rate, not taxed, for each overnight in Westminster, away from home.

In either case, the 'appropriate amount' should be set by an independent, outside body, reviewed annually.

If an MP wishes to live higher off the hog than either of those amounts would permit, then it is up to the MP to do so, paying for the excess living from his or her salary. Conversely, if the MP wants to sleep under a bridge, then they can do so!

There are about 650 MP's. Some of them may well be 'on the make'. However, a number of the rest of us are certainly not, given that we took a pay cut to become an MP!

I am surprised at reports of some individuals claiming a London living allowance, whilst being provided with a grace and favour residence. As you say, Ministerial careers can be short lived. It seems to me there is a simple way forward: get rid of the grace and favour residencies (except for the Prime Minister).

We bought our house to live in, not as a piggy bank. Those who did otherwise are now paying the price. So are the rest of us, with the toxic debt of defaulting mortgages. I confess we did extend the mortgage once, but that was to invest in bricks and mortar, and we quickly paid it off.

There is a political class. Whether, as is suggested, it is separated from the interests and lives of the citizens is perhaps not for me, as an MP, to judge. However, the upper echelons of the 3 main political parties are increasing [ly?] filled with individuals who have not had for any real length of time, what I think most of my constituents would regard as a proper job, before entering Parliament at a relatively young age. In any individual case, it may well be explicable. However, as the body politic, particularly Parliament, becomes increasingly filled with people in that position, and the upper echelons disproportionately so, one does have to question the balance.

You asked me to relay your thoughts to party leadership. I have certainly done so, as regards MP's London expenses, and as regards the backgrounds of those who are increasingly dominating our politics.

Yours sincerely,

Rob.

I think that's pretty fair. MPs need somewhere to live in their consituencies and a base in London (except for the London MPs who seem to think that two or even three London homes is acceptable). A flat rate would be easy to administer and fair. So well done Rob! It's a bit cheeky to point out that he's taken a pay cut to become an MP: for the vast majority of us, an MPs salary would be a massive increase, and if it's true that most MPs suffer financially from being elected, it justifies my point that there is a professional political class which is divorced from society - made up of rich people.

Update: Gordon Brown has proposed a similar scheme.