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.

On the campaign trail with Paul Uppal

Everybody else is doing such a good job covering the travails of that spivvy Mr Shapps that I thought I'd turn my attention to my local mini-Shapps, Mr Paul Uppal.

I received his campaign literature yesterday. It's a curious document in many ways - very interesting rhetorical devices have been used, amongst other things. Curiously, the word 'Conservative' appears very sparsely: once as 'Conservatives', once in the phrase 'Vote Conservative' and once in an email address. It's almost as if he doesn't want to stress which party he represents.

Now isn't that an odd choice of device: the legalistic terminology of contracts? My admittedly amateur understanding of the term involves an agreement to create legal obligations which may be enforced via the courts. Given the flexible nature of an MP's duties, it seems unlikely that a contractual relationship can be established between an MP and his or her constituents. What remedies are available in the event of Mr Uppal breaching his legal commitments? When are we going to sign the papers?

Leaving aside the rather dubious use of the word 'contract', lets have a look at what Mr Uppal promises he'll do if elected.

1. To stand up for our local community.

Wow. I have no idea how he's defining 'stand up for' or 'our local community'. It feels more like the kind of bland rubbish I associate with, er, politicians' promises.

2. I will not make personal attacks on my political opponents.

Fine. Good on him. Not sure it's legally enforceable though.

3. I will hold regular advice surgeries across the constituency.

Er… like all MPs already do? He's not exactly going the extra mile here. Let's not forget too that for quite a long time, Paul only held meetings by appointment, to avoid awkward conversations with people he didn't like. Still, he's raising the bar…on himself.

4. I will publish all details of my expenses as an MP on my website.

Gosh! It's a new dawn for openness. No MPs do this! (er: virtually all of them do, since all that unpleasantness).

5. I will hold regular meetings with our local community leaders.

I like this one. Well, not exactly like, more 'admire the rat-like cunning'. I suppose it avoids committing to meeting any of we mere mortals, but essentially it leaves the meaning of 'community leaders' very obscure. Whenever a 'community leader' from Northern Ireland appears on screen, it usually denotes an unelected ex-terrorist who literally knows where the bodies are buried and is being bought off with grants for 'community cohesion' or whatever. While guns are relatively rare round here, 'community leaders' are not. I rather suspect Paul means he'll meet religious groups and Tory fronts, anyone who'll give him a decent photo op rather than genuinely representative members of the community…like elected officials.

6. I will be open and honest about public spending. I believe in complete transparency when it comes to public spending. As a candidate none of my campaign literature has been paid for by tax payers. As your MP I will always be honest and let you know how public spending is being used to better our area.

Now we're getting to the good stuff. Has Paul been 'open and honest' about public spending? I have to say that he hasn't. For instance he has consistently voted in Parliament for cuts to council funding, then consistently campaigned against cuts to council spending. Paul has claimed to have revitalised the local economy, including getting the Jaguar Land Rover plant nearby. Presumably for reasons of space, he never mentions that local councils provided millions of pounds in investment to secure the factory. That seems rather dishonest to me.

We should congratulate Paul of course for not spending public money on his campaign material. Well done, Paul, for not breaking the law. Has anyone, ever, used public funds for an election campaign? As far as 'contracts' go, a commitment not to commit a crime is not exactly the most ambitious one I've ever seen.

But while we're on the subject of openness and honesty, let's take a minute to contemplate the sources of Paul's election funding. Who are they? What is the United and Cecil Club? (Hint: it collects cash from people who don't want their names associated with political donations, then passes it on to candidates. This disgusting practice is – naturally – perfectly legal).

7. I will stand up for our local services.

A flat lie. As I mentioned earlier, he votes through cuts in London then batters the council for making them. If ever you wanted a definition of cynicism, that is it.

8. I will continue to stand up for local residents.

The third use of 'stand up'. I still don't know what it means.

On the back of the leaflet is 'About Paul Uppal'. It mentions his attendance at local schools, but doesn't mention his degree in Politics (classification: unknown - he won't tell anyone for some reason). It says he 'used to run his own small business': the voters don't need to know that Pinehurst Securities is a multi-million pound property speculation business. It claims he 'secured over £163m of investment in our local area' - sadly there's no footnote explaining how this figure was arrived at.

However, I'm sure that Paul's website (address included on the leaflet) will offer a lot more clarity and detail. Let's go there.

Oh dear.

You know what, readers? I did contact Michael, wondering whether some technical error had disabled a candidate's website. I didn't really expect a reply, being just a nosy stranger, but I got one!

Technical errors hadn't ruined Paul's website. Rather embarrassingly, Mr Uppal has forgotten to pay his bill. Worse than that, Michael's company has

'been unable to reach Paul Uppal or his team for some time'. 

In fact, says Michael,

'If you see him on the campaign trail give him a sharp prod from me'. 

Well it's unlikely that we'll see such an august figure as Paul Uppal actually campaigning (photo-ops well away from the great unwashed are more his style) but I'm happy to leave this post as a little reminder to our Paul of the importance of managing one's finances effectively and 'complete transparency'.

So in sum: his 'contract' is a load of old bollocks and we can't look through his commitments to sound finance because he can't even manage to pay his website hosts. Yet Paul wants us to re-elect him and his party to stop Labour 'wrecking' the economy.

Toodle-pip.

Why let facts get in the way of a good campaign, Paul?

Over on my local MP's Twitter feed, you can see him boasting about the frankly astonishing uplift in employment in the constituency.

I think we can all agree that roughly 800 people a year either getting jobs or falling off the unemployment register (which is what really matters to politicians) is an amazing result. And I'm sure some of them won't be doing part-time, zero-hours or self-employed work for tiny sums at all. No, it's a stupendous figure. Statues should be erected to Mr Uppal for his sterling work in saving these people's lives.

But what's this? There are naysayers abroad, people who doubt Paul's claims about the economic revival! Just look at them!

What's wrong with these people? Can't they see the economic miracle? The greatest resurrection since the big one? What on earth could have prompted this mean-spirited attack on Mr Uppal's efforts?

Ah. I think I get it. When Paul proclaims the Employment Miracle, it's because he's hoping we thank the Conservative government. When his own local Conservative Party attacks the Unemployment Disaster, it's because there's a Labour council which should get the blame. So let's be clear: there's a Conservative Employment Success Story and a Labour Jobs Fail…using the same statistics. 

Isn't politics wonderful?

How To Fail At Social Media The Tory Way

3 Easy Steps to mastery of social media.

1. Pick a hashtag. For example:

Just pluck it out of the air. Don't bother doing any preparation: conversations with people, that kind of thing. Once it's a #hashtag, it'll go viral of its own accord.

2. Watch the campaign take hold like wildfire:

Don't bother supporting it in any way, or engaging with other people on your social media network of choice. Just abandon it without making any effort.

3. Have a petition. Everybody loves petitions. Especially one that opposes 'cuts'.

This bit only works if you avoid mentioning that you're a government MP and minor functionary who voted for massive cuts to council funding. Genius: you impose cuts in Parliament where nobody can see you doing it, then oppose cuts in your constituency because the Council is run by a different party. Cue mucho coverage in your supportive local paper.

And the petition?

Wow! And who are these doughty campaigners for a larger state?

Gosh. So that's you, your 21-year old campaign manager who presumably did all this work, hopefully not this Aman Johal nor this Sam Paskin who tweets mostly about his collection of weaponry, and a local Tory student.

But don't worry if this campaign doesn't go viral. You can always have another poll demanding that local parking charges are reduced. That's a surefire winner:

38 Degrees, eat your heart out!

This just in from the irony desk

I really don't have time to blog today, but can't resist this one.

When Henry Kissinger was given the Nobel Peace Prize, satirist Tom Lehrer announced that his profession was dead. There could be no higher form of sarcasm than the architect of the Cold War, Mutually Assured Destruction and the Vietnam War getting a prize for peace.

At last, I think we have a worthy successor to Mr. Kissinger. Paul Uppal MP is to address The Bridge Group on the theme of Social Mobility Through Education, alongside his boss, David Willetts. Sadly, I can't attend on Dec 3rd, but I'd encourage you to pop along to this free event.

Now, I don't know who the Bridge Group are and what they do other than host cosy networking events, but I'm assuming that their events organiser is a satirist of the highest order. How could it be otherwise when Paul Uppal's only contributions to Social Mobility Through Education have been to

• vote to abolish the Education Maintenance Allowance which kept poor teenagers in FE
• vote to impose fees of £9000 on HE students
• sign a manifesto calling for overseas students to be admitted only to 'top ten' universities.

Did Mr Uppal achieve social mobility through education? He certainly got in to Warwick University to study politics without having to pay fees or take out loans, though he's very cagy about the degree he attained. But I'd say his present position in the political firmament is more to do with the millions of pounds he acquired through property investment, which isn't exactly the 'knowledge economy' and a shameless lack of concern for those of his constituents whose lives might be transformed if they'd had the same access to free education as he did. 

What has Paul Uppal done for social mobility through education? As far as I can see, he's stopped it. 

This Sunday: World Exclusive - Blogger Makes Tasteless Jokes

You may recall that under its previous guise of The News of the World, Murdoch's flagship Sunday paper hacked the phones of murdered children, people in the public eye and people who might vaguely know people in the public eye. It, and its rivals, conducted a reign of terror: Charlotte Church, aged 13, was induced to sing at Rupert Murdoch's wedding with the promise that it would give her better media coverage than she might otherwise expect. The Sun is of course notorious, amongst other things, for claiming that Liverpool fans urinated on and robbed the bodies of their dead at Hillsborough, under the headline 'The Truth'.

And now, in a very minor but unsettling way, it's my turn.

I just had a call from a Sun on Sunday 'reporter', to whom I declined to talk: he turns out to be the political editor, and was formerly (surprise surprise) in the same post at the News of the World. He, or someone with his phone number, has read my Twitter feed or blog (it's not entirely clear which) and has discovered that (shock, horror) I've utilised these media to make exaggerated and striking analogies about Conservative politicians for satirical effect. One of them was this tweet, in response to Theresa May's vow to make Britain 'hostile' to undocumented migrants, and her appalling appearance on the Today programme during which she completely failed to provide any evidence for the scourge of 'health tourism'.

Not my wittiest retort, I have to admit, but I'm a private citizen (of partly Jewish descent) with a sense of horror at the government's decision to load the ills of society on some desperate people yearning for a better life. Exaggeration for comic effect is a recognised satirical technique, one which is de rigeur on a medium like Twitter which is all about catching the eye (almost like a Sun headline, one might say), and one sanctioned by authors such as Jonathan Swift for one.

Apparently I've also said something disobliging about Iain Duncan Smith, which sounds very likely. After all, who hasn't cursed this proven dissembler? It doesn't matter particularly that I didn't make the statement, but passed on a picture of this letter to the New Statesman by one of IDS's old teachers:

Their crack investigative team has also discovered that Labour Party Member And Academic Doesn't Think Much Of Paul Uppal And Margaret Thatcher. They're very upset that I accuse MP Paul Uppal of playing the race card, while overlooking my point that he once referred to the campaign for racial justice as 'the McCarthyite race relations industry'. Even more hilarious, they're really upset that I called the Daily Mail evil.

‘Meanwhile, the Daily Mail has finally gone off the deep end. It's always been evil, but now it's added wild and vicious idiocy to the mix’

Just to remind you: this is the Daily Mail that accused Ralph Miliband of being 'evil' for disapproving of the public schools and the monarchy, but who nevertheless fought for the UK against fascism. Intellectually and socially, I'll never reach the heights of Ralph M, but I'm proud at least to be smeared in a minor way by his phone-hacking, thieving, pornographer enemies.

I'm just disappointed that it's hack David Wooding on the case and not the Fake Sheik. Oh well, to be monstered by the Sun is reward enough for me. Though you do wonder whether Jimmy Savile, for instance, would have been exposed earlier if the Sun etc. had dug as deeply into stories about him as it has for non-stories about little old me.

Hold the front page. It must really be a slow news day. The Sun on Sunday also tells its readers that I call myself 'vile' and 'emotionally dead', which regular readers will recall was a comment made about me by a friend, and which I reproduce from time to time in the spirit of humorous self-deprecation.

‘Oh. Vile is what I'm aiming for. And 'emotionally dead' is what I was once called. I saw it as a compliment’

It is shocked to discover that I a) have a job and b) am a member of the Labour Party (about which, I should point out, I'm regularly critical). The Sun has also contacted the Labour Party and apparently I'm being 'investigated'. What that means, who can tell?

What does matter is that while the Sun on Sunday is calling press regulation an attack on press freedom, it seems to have decided that I shouldn't simultaneously have opinions it doesn't share and keep my job. In support of this slightly bizarre position, it's wheeled out a rather tragic little Tory MP by the name of Conor Burns, who is calling for me to be sacked. The Sun claims the MP came to them (that's right, a Bournemouth MP who doesn't like the views of a person from nowhere near Bournemouth automatically phones a national tabloid to draw attention to me).

But what's this? An informant draws my attention to a newspaper article about poor sensitive Conor, the man who thinks people who make tasteless jokes should lose their jobs:

A FOUL-MOUTHED Tory candidate sparked outrage by branding hecklers "spastics" and calling a woman a "hunchback."

First, he described a woman who edits the student union magazine as the "hunchback of Glen Eyre," after the name of her hall of residence. Then, as barracking continued, he turned his venom on his audience calling them "spastics."

What was Conor's defence?

"I was exasperated by the preposterous Left-wing views and disorderly behaviour of the Labour party. "There was an extremely hostile and intimidating atmosphere. I did remark that they were spastics - but I immediately apologised."

Did he resign as a matter of principle?

But I am a fighter and I will certainly not quit

I don't think I've been that offensive, so I don't think, on balance, that I'll quit either. I use 'Plashing Vole' as my online identity not to hide myself from criticism, but to distance my employer from my sharper opinions. I occasionally grumble about The Hegemon and its quirks, but I love working here and feel respected as an academic and colleague. It has never sought to silence me and I try not to embarrass it. The university's view is that I can be as idiotic as I like on my own computer as long as I'm not claiming to speak for the institution. For a newspaper to decide that citizens with opinions should be hounded out of their jobs seems frankly McCarthyite: the Red Scares in 1950s America included a sustained assault on academic freedom. For what it's worth though, I apologise whole-heartedly to my colleagues from the VC down for wasting their time with this nonsense today. With HE under such pressure from all angles, they don't need to be distracted with this stuff.

So when the Sun and its allies complain about assaults on freedom of speech, this is what they mean: that minor academics buried in the provinces should be fired from their jobs and expelled from their political parties because they pithily express their opinions. O Brave New World!

Paul Uppal and Captain Kirk

In several Star Trek episodes and films, trainee James T. Kirk's solution to Starfleet Academy's Kobayashi Maru test is spoken of with alternately, admiration and disdain. Here's the version from the recent film:



The point of the Kobayashi Maru test is that it's unwinnable. A captain who tries to win misses the point that it's a test of character in an impossible situation: facing death is the real test. James Kirk cheats: he reprogrammes the simulation to make winning possible. Here's Kirk's explanation from The Wrath of Khan.



Which brings me to Paul Uppal MP and Equal Marriage. When he was lobbied last week, he expressed a view that he opposed it: firstly for legal reasons and subsequently on the grounds of religious freedom. Personally, my feeling is that he reckons the Daily Mail voters on the western fringe of The Dark Place plus the Sikh vote will get him re-elected if he panders to their prejudices enough. I also think he's wrong: Sikhs, like everybody else, vote according to a range of personal concerns and can't be treated as a block. They won't vote for him just because he too is Sikh.

The other impulse pulling Paul Uppal was his craven loyalty to David Cameron. As I said yesterday, he voted for student fees, NHS dismemberment, EMA withdrawal, multiple wars, benefit cuts for disabled children and any number of vicious and retrograde laws. He is a man for whom the mirage of advancement means much.

So there he was, last night: his own personal Kobayashi Maru. Vote against equal marriage and lose his 100% record of unthinking loyalty but appease the bigots who elected him. Or vote for equal marriage despite his own views and alienate said bigots, making re-election even less likely? Luckily (and I should have seen this coming given his record thus far), Paul did a Kirk. Rather than face the test, he bottled it and abstained. In one of the most symbolic votes in years, one which firmly divides the political class between humane progressives and reactionaries, Uppal took the coward's way out.

Will it help him? I don't think so. He presumably calculates that Cameron's revenge will be focussed on those who voted against the Bill rather than those who quietly ducked the challenge, while the anti-equality voters will similarly give him a free pass. Wrong. The Conservative leadership will despise him as an unprincipled coward while the bigots will take the view that the Tories enacted equal marriage and won't make any distinction between abstainers and supporters when it comes to putting an X in the box.

Uppal won't go on to save the universe and breed with multiple glamorous aliens. He's destined for humiliating defeat and a life of bitter contempt for the voters. He faced the unwinnable situation and cheated in the most spineless fashion possible.

I know Captain Kirk. And you, Mr Uppal, are no Captain Kirk.

The Uppal Conundrum

What to do? Imagine that you're an ambutious MP in a very, very marginal seat. You're a Sikh in a city with the second-highest Sikh population in the UK, and you reckon there's a solid Conservative and conservative potential vote there (sadly mistaken: the voters are more sophisticated than that).

But you also have a reputation for slavish loyalty. You've never, ever expressed an opinion contrary to the views of the party leadership, nor voted against them.

But now that leadership is asking you to vote yes to equal marriage. At long last you've found an actual principle. Library closures haven't bothered you. Cuts to disabled children's benefits you voted for without a twinge. You've cheered on bombings, renditions, recessions, sickenings and thickenings in the Health and Education sectors.

But now you've discovered that you hate the gays.

What's a man to do? Please your imaginary homophobic electorate in the hope it will save your worthless skin? Or vote with the leadership to get your well-padded bottom on the House of Lords' read leather seats after the 2015 Meltdown?

I guess we'll find out which way Paul Uppal votes this afternoon. In the meantime… place your bets.

Opportunism, thy name is Uppal

You may have heard yesterday that the Conservative Party's effort to reduce the number of parliamentary seats and equalise constituency sizes was defeated yesterday, thanks to four Conservative MPs and every other party opposing it, including the Liberal Democrats.

On the face of it, equal constituencies and fewer MPs sounds reasonable. In practice, it's a Tory plot to gain themselves and inbuilt majority. It rides roughshod over local loyalties and identities too.

Needless to say, ultra-loyalist government today Mr Paul Uppal, my local MP, was ensconced in his usual position, half-way up the Prime Minister's colon. Needlessly, I should add: despite this apparently being the PM's most passionate point of principle, he didn't bother to turn up and vote. I'm quite certain Mr Uppal voted on a point of principle and not at all because the new boundaries would dump a lot of those nasty poor slum voters and replace them with rich rural Tories from the outlying villages. Mr Uppal's majority is, of course, 691.

On that point of principle about the democratic deficit, is there not an irony in the fact that Labour and Liberal Democrat Members are often inspired by the Chartists, who voted for equal-sized constituencies? There is a perverse relationship today, in that those Members are going to go through the Lobby and vote to retain the disconnect and the democratic deficit.

This is a little rich from Mr Uppal. A number of measures to reduce the 'democratic deficit' have been proposed by the Liberal Democrats and assorted Labourites in the recent past. Indeed Mr Uppal has gone through the Lobby voted against the Alternative Vote, which would have gone a long way to reducing the 'democratic deficit' by making sure that any elected MP had the positive support of 50% + 1 vote of the turnout. (Mr Uppal received 40.7% of the vote, while his Labour opponent managed 39%.  Only 68% of the electorate bothered turning out).

Other 'democratic deficits' Mr Uppal appears not to mind include the House of Lords: not only is he opposed to a democratically-elected Upper House (surely not because he thinks he may one day be awarded the ermine?), he supports the Prime Minister's efforts to boost its numbers to almost 1000 peers. That's right: Mr Uppal wants 600 MPs elected by you and me, and 1000 unelected legislators – the descendants of robber barons, rackrent landlords, the upper management of a tiny religious sect known as the Church of England, party donors and other assorted hacks – who get a say in law until the day they die without ever having to face the judgement of the people.

And he lectures us about a political 'disconnect and the democratic deficit'. The man's an embarrassment.

Another day, another Uppal idiocy

Smarmy Paul, back from shilling for the Israeli government, got a question at PMQs this week. Let's have a look, shall we?

May I highlight for my right hon. Friend a free school that will be opening in one of the most deprived wards in Wolverhampton next year? It will provide a real ladder for social mobility for young people. It is a great, tangible advert for what this Government are doing in education, and he is more than welcome to visit.

Oh dear. The usual tissue of untruths. It's true that a 'school' is opening in the city. The rest is spin, starting with the adjective 'free'. It's not free. It's paid for by us, the citizens of the UK. 'Free' in fact means 'outside the planning and supervision of the wider community'.

The School is Anand Primary. It has a revolting and rather evasive video which may induce vomiting:



Its mission:

working tirelessly to deliver a new Sikh ethos

Which rather implies that there's a coherent, discrete Sikh identity, of course. And that Sikhism, alone of all religious doctrines, is entirely beneficent. But let's not get into those deep waters.

What else? Well:

Our school will be a safe, happy and eco-friendly place dedicated to giving your children the best start in life. The highest standards of teaching will be complemented by a wide range of extra-curricular activities to enable all the children to fulfil their academic, creative and sporting potential.

A wise man once said that if a statement's reverse can't be plausibly delivered, then it's meaningless. I'll give it a go.

Our school will be an unsafe, unhappy and wasteful place dedicated to giving your children the worse start in life. The lowest standards of teaching will be complemented by no extra-curricular activities to enable a few of the children to fulfil their academic, creative and sporting potential. 

See? Nonsense. And I'd be very surprised if a school of 60 pupils with no actual premises is equipped to deliver all this anyway. To say nothing of the nasty little secret at the heart of Free and Academy schools: they're exempt from laws requiring qualified teachers, minimum nutrition standards, democratic governance, Freedom of Information compliance and a host of other rules which have transformed state schools in recent years.

Then we reach the Sikh values:

• Kirat Karau – which means that we should all earn our living through honest means and hard work. We should all take responsibility for ourselves and should never compromise our integrity.
• Vandd Shakau – which means that we should share the fruits of our toil with all. We should respect everyone and work in the self-less service of all.
• Naam Jappau – which means to keep God in mind at all times. To not waste a second of the time we have on this planet but to use it to become the best that we can be.

Wow. What a radical and distinctive moral vision. Don't cheat, work hard, be responsible for your actions and be community minded. All very nice, but I'm not sure we need an entirely separate school to promote these values: I very much suspect and hope that all the other schools in the locality hold the same ideals. Except Business schools of course. Those people are scum.

Naam Jappau is, I suspect, the real point of this establishment. Despite the video's claim that the school will be open to all, its purpose - like that of all religious schools - is to provide segregated education without interference. Plenty of dishonest non-religious parents send their children to Catholic schools, for example, but I suspect that it won't happen in this case. The proof is in the eating, of course but religious schools tend to become ghettos, which are not well-known for achieving social mobility.

'Oh, but you're just a big racist', I hear you objecting. 'Catholics and Protestants and Jews all have separate schools'.

Don't worry, dear readers. I hate those schools too. And I know whereof I speak. I only attended Catholic schools. I've been physically assaulted by the Sisters of Mercy, the Christian Brothers and the Benedictines. I'm also familiar with the Northern Irish education system, whose segregation has perpetuated state-sponsored sectarian hatred for generations. Schools controlled by a particular religious ethos promote separation, isolation and superiority. They encourage students to see themselves as Chosen People with a secret code to Paradise rather than as free and equal citizens rather than privileged members of an Elect. They also retard intellectual development: at one of my secondary schools I became convinced my name had been changed to 'Shut Up', as that's the reply I got to every question on religious matters. Inquiry is never given free rein in a school which assumes as a matter of policy that there's a deity (or deities). The rights and needs of subjugated groups are never accepted - what links most religions is misogyny and often homophobia.

My Catholic education was psychologically and culturally damaging. It was also, with the honourable exception of one school, educationally substandard. Inquiry was limited, certain subjects were verboten (I lived in a state of perpetual ignorance with regard to sexuality, gender relations and basic biology for many years afterwards) and challenging ideas went unmentioned. It was no battleground of ideas. There were no questions, only pre-packed answers.

This city doesn't need religious schools. The ethnic groups which want them aren't persecuted and fading away - the Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims are strong, proud and enduring traditions here. They're free to educate their children religiously at home and in their places of worship. What we don't need is an educational system which systematically promotes segregation (and let's not forget that Sikhism is one of the few non-proselytising religions: it's an ethnic category as much as it is a religious denomination). Children should learn about each other's cultures in school without a teacher telling them that one lot is right/Chosen/going to heaven and the rest are misbegotten heretics. Schools shouldn't, to be blunt, exist to reinforce division, untestable claims and the status quo. How many free thinkers will we get from schools whose ultimate answer to every question is 'Because God says so'?

But returning to Paul Uppal. What's this bit?

It will provide a real ladder for social mobility for young people.

Seriously? How? What's the metric? How will removing some children from existing primary schools and sending them to a new school based on religious and ethnic identity promote social mobility? As far as I can see, it will retard it. Social mobility is about working-class people moving into the professions and income brackets (though those who like the idea rarely mention the possibility of downward social mobility). It's a class and economic issue, not an ethnic or religious one. At this point, Mr Uppal is just spouting arrant, embarrassing nonsense. They're just words, signifiers with no signified.

Social mobility means closing the fee-paying schools, abolishing Academies and Free Schools and taxing the rich and the likes of Apple and Google to make sure that the resources of Eton are available to all children everywhere. There's no secret to how fee-paying schools get good results. They weed out any child they don't like. They have tiny classes and resources coming out of their ears. In the state sector you don't get £30,000 spent on you per year until you go to prison, where there are fewer ski trips and lacrosse lessons.

This city doesn't need more money diverted to vanity schools. This city has a food bank. I'd humbly suggest that an economic structure which ensures people don't depend on charity to stave off hunger would be a greater contribution to 'social mobility' than any amount of niche educational establishments.

I despair, I really do. My only explanation other than wilful stupidity is that Mr Uppal is a racist cynic. He's decided that the Sikh community will deliver him a bloc of votes if he promotes this scheme – and that's all he needs. Personally, there's a lot to admire in Sikhism, and I've got nothing against Sikhs, just as I have nothing against most religious bodies, other than their baffling need to install some form of deity in the scientific gaps.

Paul has just returned from a country which explicitly identifies itself as a Jewish state. Its Muslim population is legally discriminated against in every area of life. Both sides see the other not as humans, or fellow citizens, but as enemies. Despite the similarities between Judaism and Islam, religious difference has become religious hatred because the communities never meet - just like Northern Ireland, only hotter. Is this what's inspired Paul's mission to Balkanize this small and relatively peaceful city?

Will the other politicians in the city oppose this and other 'free' schools and 'academies'? Not a chance. None of them see any electoral advantage in challenging the discourse of 'choice' (as though it's a magic solution for all ills) or 'identity politics' - and votes trump principles. Personally, I think secular schools run by a democratically-elected council which has the resources and the strategic oversight to plan for the city's needs is a proud and radical idea. But everybody else would rather retreat to the tactical jockeying and appeasement we call democracy.

And people call me cynical.

Where's Paul Uppal?

Regular readers may dimly remember that I used to devote a sizeable amount of my time to regaling you with the latest, most desperate exploits of my almost heroically dim, cynical, lazy and arrogant MP, Mr Paul Uppal, a man so far up the bottom of David Cameron that you can see his eyes gleaming behind the Prime Minister's tonsils when he laughs.

So, you may be wondering, what's happened? Where is the trenchant commentary on Mr P's shameless self-promotion and hypocrisy?

Well, to tell you the truth, there's nothing to say. Our Paul - never the most active sloth on the branch - has decided that the best way to avoid a calamitous defeat in the election is simply to say and do nothing. It won't help, of course, but it might turn a Pompeii-style eruption of democratic fury into a Mount St. Helen's.

Let's have a quick look at his latest activity over at PaulUppal.com. Don't bother with Twitter: he hasn't made an appearance for 119 days - presumably his last technologically-competent teenage aide has too much homework on to pretend to be Our Parliamentary Hero.

On October the 6th, he poked his head above the parapet, went over the top of the trench and faced down the masses as he bravely supported guide dogs. A big hand, ladies and gentlemen, for his political bravery in grasping this controversial nettle. It almost makes me forget that he voted to cut disability benefits even for children.

October 5th saw him taking another lonely, principled stand in favour of CAFOD feeding the hungry over the seas. No doubt African hunger is the fault (all together now) of 'the last Labour government'. Sadly Paul hasn't yet found time to comment on, or even donate to, the food banks now feeding the poor and hungry in his own constituency. Come on Paul, it might help you keep your seat: food for votes! Though local people queuing for cans of beans might not look too kindly on your claim that the Tories are bringing back the good times (at least, I assume you're arguing this… in your mirror).

28th September saw you drink coffee against cancer - another lonely struggle, and a few days before that, you publicly opposed dangerous dogs. Once more proving that you're a man of principle and not the kind of guy who turns up to the opening of an envelope providing there's nothing inside that might possibly upset your rich constituents.

What have you been doing since October 5th? Well, rumour has it that Cameron decided that rather than dislodge you from his intestines, he'd give you the job of carrying David Willetts' bags as PPS to the Universities Minister. Perhaps this is a good time to tell us what classification of degree you got? I've asked you before, and you declined to answer. Was it a 3rd, Paul? Or - surely not - an Ordinary or a Fail?

Strangely, your own website fails to mention your new job. One would have thought that a man as arrogant as you would be shouting it from the rooftops. But on second thoughts, perhaps not. Certainly if I'd voted to impose fees of £9000 on students (now revealed to be costing the government and taxpayers more than the £6000 scheme), and I had 20,000 students in my constituency (majority: 691), I'd be keeping my mouth very tightly shut indeed. Still, your secret's safe with me, eh?

So come on Paul, have you done anything in the last few months?

Well readers, you won't be disappointed: while Paul likes to pose for photos with cancer charities, he found the energy to sign a letter to the Health Secretary in July opposing plain packaging for cigarettes, the latest plan to make smoking less attractive. To summarise his argument, lots of jobs depend on people giving themselves fatal cancer - and not just MacMillan nurses' jobs either. Even more importantly, some major tax-avoiding global corporations need you to buy their fags. So come on, do your duty! Start smoking! Finally, Joe Camel's right to get your kids smoking is a matter of freedom of speech (this from the man who during the 2010 election campaign regularly deleted comments from his short-lived blog). What's the deaths of millions of people compared with Marlboro's right to coloured packaging?

Looking forward to his election slogan: 'Tough On Cancer; Relaxed About The Causes Of Cancer'.

The Tory Barrel, Scraped.

Despite my two fundamental disagreements with the Conservative Party (everything it says, and everything it does), I've always had a lingering respect for it as a machine. It is ruthless, sinister, single-minded and vicious. As parties go, it's the Tasmanian Devil.

Until now. Despite having a wider pool of MPs from which to choose, it has awarded PAUL UPPAL a government post. Not only that, but one as Parliamentary Private Secretary to David Willetts, the Minister of State for Universities and Science.

I am baffled. Firstly, Paul Uppal is a serial loyalist. He literally has never disagreed with the party line on anything, in the two years he's been an MP. One might think he has no invididual consciousness. A cynic might say that his loyalty was a job-seeking strategy. But from the government's point of view, one would have thought that so slavish a toady does not require a PPS job: they're unpaid and often used to force rebels to behave. Many spiky Labour MPs were bought off by such a post: you have to resign if you want to vote against your government's line. There was no danger of Uppal rebelling, so there was no need to buy him off. He retails planted questions, I suspect he invents agreeable constituents who adopt perfectly nuanced Parliamentary discourse to elucidate his personal opinions and as I've documented in the past, is not above telling untruths to Parliament.

Is Uppal qualified to be an education expert? He won't tell anyone what degree classification he achieved (Warwick, Politics) and he's never worked in education or evinced any interest in higher education policy, based on his speeches. He's a property speculator, plain and simple.

What other explanations are there? There is a university in Uppal's constituency, but he seems to basically oppose it: he enthusiastically voted for fees and has not concerned himself with our well-being. The constituency is an ultra-marginal one though: he has a majority of 691. The Tory vote hardly increased: Labour voters stayed at home. So giving him a cheap job might be an attempt to bolster Uppal's profile in the hope that it might save him.

I'm determined to make sure it's exactly the opposite. Government policy is to beggar and humble less prestigious universities such as The Hegemon. It wants to concentrate research and high-achieving A-level students in Russell Group universities, and farm out the rest to dodgy corporate faux-universities. It has loaded students with debts of £60,000 each, which will wreck entry to socially-useful low-paid jobs (teaching, nursing, social work, research) and further study, especially amongst the working classes. I am going to make damn sure that every single student associates Uppal with the government's actions: 2015 is the date of the next election and sees the first £9000 fees students graduate - the perfect storm.

So I don't think that it's a particularly clever marginal constituency gambit. Which leaves one horrible, horrible reason:

The Conservative Party actually thinks that Paul Uppal is the best of the remaining unemployed Tory MPs. 

Even I find this hard to swallow. For all their blind ideological idiocy, there are highly-qualified, articulate and intelligent MPs on the government benches. And yet… this is the decision they've reached.

David Willetts' nickname is 'Two Brains'. I hope it's true because frankly, he'll have to lend one of them to his new PPS.

Where's the money, Paul?

As I should be working, I find myself checking on the accounts relating to Paul Uppal MP's company, Pinehurst Securities. I say 'his' company, but he's only a shareholder: the sole director is one Surjit Uppal.


Now Paul's been rather secretive about the nature of the business, but he hasn't been above boasting to property media that he's made several millions from it over the years, and that it's rather successful. So imagine my surprise at discovering that it's on rather a downward trend of late (accounts relate to 2011 - click to enlarge).

There's virtually no money in the bank, the net worth of the company has slumped, debts have increased, and the current assets are less than the £50,000 to get a good dinner with a Cabinet Minister.


Now it's hard to believe that Sneaky Paul is so incompetent that he's been caught out by the recession his government has done its level best to exacerbate. But that must be the reason. Surely he wouldn't engineer liabilities and debts to avoid taxation, would he? And that massive slump in cash and assets - he wouldn't be taking money out of the company, would he? Not that there's anything naughty about that, of course. And after all, the £65,000 an MP earns isn't enough to keep a dog in a kennel.


I have to assume - and I'm sure Paul will confirm - that he doesn't use any 'tax-efficient', 'tax-avoiding' or 'tax-evading' measures to reduce his bills. For instance, taking profits as capital gains rather than income…


Anyone know enough about this stuff to express an opinion?


Anyway, Paul won't starve: he's been on a lovely jolly with the Conservative Friends of India, courtesy of the (very poor) Indian government. Wonder what they want in return, and why Paul didn't mention it in his assiduously-maintained publicity?

6. Overseas visits
Name of donor: Ministry of External Affairs, India
Address of donor: South Block, New Delhi 110 011
Amount of donation (or estimate of the probable value): Flights to and from India and internal flights, hotel accommodation, food and other travel costs; total approximately £8,000.
Destination of visit: India
Date of visit: 17-24 September 2011
Purpose of visit: as part of a delegation of the Conservative Friends of India at the invitation of the High Commission in London and the Ministry of External Affairs, Delhi, meeting politicians and businessmen in Delhi and Mumbai.
(Registered 2 November 2011)

Your weekly Uppal roundup

The Egregious Uppal must scent promotion in the air - he's spent the week kissing bottom and distorting serious matters even more assiduously than usual.

First up is the environment:

There is great news about the economic development of sub-Saharan Africa, which is a possible portent for the future but is also a double-edged sword, because that development is built on the back of natural and mineral resources. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the UK will continue to take a lead on sustainability, and will tackle concerns about eco-protectionism head-on?

On first glance, this seems innocuous enough. Who could possibly be against improving sub-Saharan economic growth?

The sting in the tail is the last few words. We can ignore 'sustainability' as a meaningless term thrown about by cynical bullshitters. It's 'eco-protectionism' which should concern us. It's a new phrase bandied about by neoliberals to describe state support for environmental technology and infrastructure, such as the massive Chinese investment in the state's railways. So what at first sounds like a pro-environment speech is actually a sneaky way of attacking states for deciding that large-scale action to save the environment might be more important than letting multinational corporations destroy local economies through dumping and monopoly behaviour, and buy abandoning emissions charges and other environmental regulations. Certainly Uppal cares more about corporate profits than the Sub-Saharan poor. But we knew this anyway, didn't we?

OK, so what else has he been up to? There's this childish bit of parliamentary nonsense:

Will the Leader of the House facilitate a debate on the public perception of the politicians in this place and, more specifically and pertinently, now that the dust has settled, on whether that perception was enhanced by last week’s Opposition debate?

Which means precisely nothing other than 'aren't the others awful?'. What a fine use of our democracy. What else?

I have a slight confession to make. I spent a great deal of my 20 years in business dealing with swaps, collars, caps and all sorts of financial instruments. The case highlighted by my hon. Friend of its being a fixed-rate product in a sense misses the point. In general, such products were hedges—they were there to mitigate risk. A lot of customers went awry, because the bank would often present the products as a loan but would gear up much more if the risk could be mitigated. Such financial products were often sold on that basis.

Finally, Uppal comes out! No, not sexually. But he's always been very 'circumspect', one could say  - a harsher critic than I might even say 'secretive' - about his business past. Rightly so: you wouldn't want your largely poor and working-class constituents to know that you're a multimillionaire speculator of the kind who's crashed the economy and sent the city into a spiral of decline.

What does this little speech - admittedly not up there with Cicero in the rhetorical stakes - mean? As far as I can tell, he's suggesting that the banks shouldn't be criticised for selling dubious financial instruments to small businesses. Life's tough. Get over it. I'm sure his constituents will be very grateful for that advice.

All in all, a good week's work for little Paul! No wonder he's too tired and busy to attend the debate on electoral reform and electoral fraud currently underway, despite his obsession with the issue… but then again, there are only 5 Conservatives, 7 Labour and two Plaid Cymru MPs there in total.

Open government…

What's our favourite MP, Paul Uppal, spending our time and money on now?

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government with reference to the answer of 27 March 2012, Official Report, column 1063W, on statistics,
(1) if he will request a formal pre-release investigation into the tweeting by a BBC journalist on 2 December 2012 of the section 16 of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 notification letter issued by the UK Statistics Authority prior to it being issued on 6 December 2012;
(2) whether any staff of the UK Statistics Authority communicated to the BBC the intention to make a notification under section 16 of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 prior to the formal notification on 6 December 2012.

Not the most accessible use of English, I grant you, but trust me: he's up to no good. The background is this: Housing Minister Grant Shapps - the epitome of smug Tory spivvery - got caught being, let's say, 'creative' with statistics, beyond the flexibility we usually expect of government ministers.

The Labour Party reported his abuse of the facts to the Statistics Authority, whose duty it is to vet and assess all figures used by government - a fine and essential organisation. The SA agreed that there's a problem and wrote to Mr Shapps asking to review his department's approach to stats, and Mr Shapps told them to sod off and then mentioned the war in the course of his attack on Labour's (admittedly poor) record on house-building.

Enter Mr Uppal. Is he overjoyed that a housing or statistics scandal is being exposed by a free press determined to hold power to account? No, don't be silly. He wants the whole thing hushed up, and is trying to start a witch-hunt against the civil servants he suspects notified the BBC of the decision to investigate Shapps' department.

Did the Bolshevik Broadcasting Authority suborn some fellow-traveller in the UK Statistics Authority in an attempt to subvert the sterling work of Mr Shapps?

In respect of (ii), when considering such matters the Authority's staff will provide officials in the relevant department(s) with information on the Authority's intentions. Officials at the Department for Communities and Local Government were therefore informed in respect of the Authority's intentions.
The Authority's staff will respond similarly to enquiries from interested parties, and following a subsequent enquiry to the Authority representatives of the BBC were advised of the Authority's intention to write to Ministers under section 16 of the 2007 Act.

Er… no. They clearly phoned up and asked what was happening. As the department had been notified, the Stats Authority released the information. Perfectly properly.

Won't somebody rid me of this troublesome MP?

Well, Paul Uppal's back from his extended holiday from his responsibilities. Sadly, he's far from refreshed. Once again, he's hawking jaded and predictable talking points around like a child who's learned to use a potty.

Some years ago, a prominent immigration lawyer told me that the two main drivers of immigration are, first, the perception—right or wrong—that we have an overtly generous welfare system in the UK; and secondly, lax human rights legislation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in this statement and through our welfare reforms, we are tackling those issues head-on?
The shadow Home Secretary talked about a bond. Does my right hon. Friend not find that ironic and perhaps politically opportunistic, given that, when in power, Labour considered such a measure but chose to put it to one side, but in opposition they sing a different tune?

Oh dear. I've suddenly got Morrissey's 'Asian Rut' song going round my head. It's not pleasant. Why Morrissey? Because like Uppal, Morrissey's the son of immigrants who has somehow managed to find common cause with fascists like the BNP and their Conservative fellow-travellers. There's something utterly sickening about a man casually raising suspicion of immigrants for political advantage in general - but doing so after having been the beneficiary of a humane immigration policy.

Let's note in passing that Uppal always has a useful source to quote - a constituent who uses Parliamentary language to express opinions identical to Uppal's, for instance. Very convenient.

I like the 'right or wrong' bit (and for the sake of kindness, let's assume the 'overtly' is a transcription error rather than one of vocabulary). It makes him look impartial, when we all know very well that he means 'wrong'. For information, here's what refugees are entitled to:

• Almost all asylum seekers are not allowed to work and are forced to rely on state support – this can be as little as £5 a day to live on.

• Asylum seekers do not jump the queue for council housing and they cannot choose where they live.
 The accommodation allocated to them is not paid for by the local council. It is nearly always ‘hard to let’ properties, where other people do not want to live.

And here's what immigrants (non-EU ones have to prove they've got a large chunk of cash before they arrive) may claim:

anyone who does not have ILR (Indefinite Leave to Remain)or British citizenship will have "no recourse to public funds" marked in their passports; this includes visitors, people on spouse visas, students, work visa holders, etc. However, once someone has ILR they have the same entitlements as British citizens in the same circumstances, they can access JSA, Housing Benefit, go on the council waiting list, etc.

OK? Not exactly the land of milk and honey.

Moving on. What exactly is a 'lax' human right? Is it Britain's recognition that all humans have the right to life, safety and a family? Which rights, exactly, would he like to withdraw? Shelter from torture? From all of us? Or just the vulnerable? Does he want to withdraw his own parents' human rights? Or just some nebulous 'others'?

I'd have thought that the 'main drivers' of immigration to the UK are exactly the same reasons which brought his parents here. The British Empire (I notice Uppal and his friends never condemn that violent and unwelcome mass movement of people to other peoples' countries) spread English round the globe and sucked in the labour and goods of its constituent nations. When it withdrew, people like Paul's parents found themselves a long way from their national origins and were naturally drawn to the colonial power because it was rich. Personally, I think the UK should be paying reparations to the countries it looted, and abandoned without industry, economies and democratic government.

I'm sorry to be so personal, but I've got to, provoked by Paul's cynicism. He make no distinction between refugees and economic migrants - but nor would I wish to. My family is partly made up of economic immigrants from Ireland. Given what the UK did to Ireland and other countries, you could argue that we're owed something. More importantly, migrants contribute hugely to the economy - Paul's made millions and I'll presume - for the sake of argument - that he pays tax. Without migration, Paul wouldn't be here (I'll resist the obvious point).

What the Tories want to do is impose a massive cash bond on immigrants. The idea is that we keep out the poor. I think this is sickening. Many of the most innovative and creative contributors to society have been dirt poor, and worked their way up. Would Paul's parents have got in if they'd had to find £19,000?

Even more so than usual, I find Uppal's behaviour sickening and cynical. To pull up the ladder behind him in pursuit of BNP votes is his lowest point yet. I hope his constituents - many of them poor, hardworking Asians - agree with me.

Is it 'cos he is Asian?

As you know, I've become increasingly concerned with the safety of Paul Uppal MP, who has been missing in action for about a month, judging by his website and Twitter feed.

Good news! He's hard at work writing a report for David Cameron on how to win the election by connecting with ethnic minority voters!

This might seem a little odd coming from a man who once sneeringly referred to the 'race relations circus' when a racist Tory friend of his lost his job, but never underestimate Paul's willingness to change his opinions for the sake of preferment.

Here's what he said, on a blog which mysteriously disappeared when he got elected (shame a highly-educated MP doesn't know what to do with an apostrophe either):

… the McCarthyistic mouth foaming utterances of the race relations industry, which through accusation alone can slay political careers and stifle well intentioned and principled debate. I say this because I have seen with my very own eyes the modus operandi of this circus, employing individuals to perpetuate this climate of political correctness. In reality this industry/business does dreadful damage to Britain’s race relations. It seems more concerned with securing it’s own funding streams and non jobs for it’s membership of zealots. The cost of this is all is so much more than financial, as we lose decent people and gag those who point to the emperor’s new clothes.

Never mind, either, that the Tories have always been disdainful of 'identity politics': when votes are in question, they'll do anything.

Sadly for Lazy Paul, I think he'll find that a) 'ethnic minority' voters are likely to share the same concerns as non-minority citizens: finding a job, keeping a job, decent schools and healthcare, and an honest government working for the good of all. Presumably the Tories have given up on these, and are trying to find ways to stereotype ethnic minorities as somehow sharing Tory values.

In case you're from an ethnic minority and find yourself tempted to vote Tory, remember this racist (and illiterate) Tory poster. One candidate in the Smethwick 1964 by-election replaced 'coloured' with the N-word in his speeches.

And let's not forget the Conservative Students' popular t-shirt and sticker campaign, which echoed Margaret Thatcher's claim that Mandela was simply a terrorist:

No doubt the Conservatives have improved, but there aren't many ethnic minority MPs, and most of those are in constituencies with large ethnic minority populations: it's almost as though white Tories won't vote for non-white candidates. Hence Derek Taylor and Warsi getting places in the House of Lords rather than achieving election. Then of course there's the Monday Club, the hysterical language used to demonise immigrants, refugees and Romany/Travellers, the Nazi songs sung at Tory stag dos and Tory student parties, and countless examples of golf-club bigotry. Let's not even mention the Tory fury at criticism of the police when Stephen Lawrence was murdered. Boris Johnson described the Metropolitan Police as the 'victims', which seems a little bit odd. But then, he did refer to black people as 'grinning picanninnies' with 'watermelon smiles' (his defence: he was 'quoted out of context', which is what Hitler would have said at Nuremberg). And of course there's the curious Tory decision to leave the mainstream European Conservative grouping and join in with the Polish, Hungarian and other Holocaust deniers. But you don't have to believe me: Conservative Party MP Priti Patel told the Financial Times that 'racist attitudes do persist within the party… there is a lot of bigotry around'.  

Paul: if you want ethnic minority people to vote for you, how about this:

1. Fix the economy

2. Stop punishing the poor.

3. Tackle institutional racism

4. Stop bombing their ancestral homes on a whim. 

5. Explain why - and then fix - the massive imbalance in non-white unemployment, educational achievement and presence in politics, business and the arts. 

But of course Paul and his boss aren't interested in policy. It's about marketing. 

All Points Bulletin: Have You Seen This MP?

I'm now becoming seriously worried about the safety and whereabouts of Paul Uppal MP.

Caption contest?

Normally he's all over the place - popping up at PMQs to make some point dictated to him by the whips; churning out idenitikit press releases; claiming credit for everything up to and including the Big Bang.

But recently he's gone under the radar. Virtually no Tweets. No self-adulatory posts on his website for almost a month. No industry-friendly pieces in speculators' journals. No - and this perplexes me most of all - explanations of why he voted to cut benefits for the blind, the young and the disabled. Not a peep from him during the election campaign during which his party did so badly. Certainly no representation of his constituents (but then that came a long way down his list of priorities ever since 2010).

Paul: if you're out there, check in. We're your friends, we worry about you. If you're snowed under counting your money, just say so. Now that Tories are an endangered species in this city, it would be terrible to lose the most prominent one. As long as we know you're safe (and not desperately casting about for a safe seat elsewhere, because let's face it, you're toast in 2015).

Citizens, not shoppers

The forces of darkness, aka Paul Uppal MP and the local Masons small businessmen, have decided that they want to sweep the city's streets clean of, well, everybody except shoppers. They have no vision of society beyond the transactional exchange of money between low-paid drones and tax-evading national chains. Walk down The Dark Place's main streets and it's nothing but Lichtensteiner mobile phone providers, Swiss-domiciled chemists and a bland, narrow 'range' of establishments substituting baubles for community. Of all the shops in the city's main space, one is independent: a butcher's. And they wonder why the place is depressed.

Trapped in this consumerist paradigm - and no wonder, given the Secretive Millionaire MP made his money speculating in commercial property - Uppal and his friends want to turn the city centre into a BID: Business Improvement District. They're a kind of urban cancer: they promise local councils that they'll turn any area into a clean and shiny place, the kind you see on corporate brochures. You know, white couples in pastel clothes strolling from Starbucks to John Lewis. Perhaps even a black or same-sex couple in the background to prove that capitalism can cope with 'diversity'. The clue's in the name: they don't want to improve the city - just their profits.

Of course BIDs are sinister, Orwellian organisations. They take public space, get the law changed and turn it into private space. The high street ceases being somewhere I could sit and read the paper, where goth kids can sit and peaceably sneer at me, where the mad and bad can expound their terrible religious views. It becomes a conveyor belt from the neon hell of chain store to chain store. No deviation permitted. You'll be there on sufferance, rather than as a citizen. Security guards can and will remove you for sitting, not shopping, for announcing your political views or simply looking wrong.

I can't express how strongly I oppose this. I want my high street to be a place where weird, spontaneous things happen. I want it to be various: not just a parade of shiny plastic. It's where we should party and protest or just stop to chat - think of all those Italian squares where the cool and the crazy, the old and the young interact. Cities are brilliant places, because large numbers of people are thrown together in an accident of geography. Out of this comes weird, exciting - and sometimes unpleasant - encounters, activities, art and other activities. If Uppal and his greedy friends get their way, we'll be reduced to one thing and one thing only: buying, then leaving. That's partly why this place is so unpleasant. During the day, you shop. At night, the only reason to be there is to drink so much that a technicolor yawn seems like the only way to brighten the place up.

The Dark Place is zoned. Nasty kebab shops and sex shops down a couple of streets, municipal buildings tucked away, shops - and empty shops - dominating the centre. Let's be more imaginative. Let's place public buildings in the shopping arcades: libraries, council offices, free leisure activities, so that the crowd isn't made up solely of open-mawed consumers. Encourage the goths, the chavs and whichever other social groups are out there.

I am seriously thinking about starting a proper organisation to challenge the BIDs. I've already got a name: RABID Wolves (Residents Against Business Improvement Districts). Neat, eh? Who's with me?

So that just about wraps it Uppal

It's been - he thinks - a good week's media exposure for Paul Uppal MP, known in these parts as The Secretive Millionaire. He had a question at PMQs:

Earlier this week the journalist Mary Ann Sieghart wrote an article in The Independent about the many young south Asian women who feel that traditionally their votes have been hijacked through abuse of the postal vote system. Will my right hon. Friend please look at revisiting the issue of postal votes on demand not only to strengthen our democracy and trust in it, but to ensure that all voters have a vote and, particularly in the case of south Asian young voters, their votes are not stolen?

Now we'll leave aside the impression that his intellectual level is such that he gets his talking points from mediocre newspaper columnists (like the pub bore retailing the latest outrage from the Daily Mail). Instead, let's have a look at the facts.

Does little Paul - not a noted feminist - cite any evidence for his concern about 'many' young South Asian women? No. Has he ever reported any voting fraud abuse to the police? No. Was there any fraud in his constituency? No: despite him telling Parliament that the police and the Electoral Commission were investigating fraud, they both told me that he hadn't complained, and they weren't investigating any cases. The nearest case of electoral fraud was in Walsall… and it was the Tories.

What Paul's really bothered about - alongside most urban MPs on the government benches - is the large number of poor and transient people who when they vote, tend to vote Labour. In particular, Paul's very scared that the students graduating in 2015 might be a little bit annoyed by paying £27,000 fees. They might even think that a millionaire Conservative MP who got his education for free, but voted for fees, deserves to be thrown out on his well-padded bottom. So the Tories have come up with a little wheeze, imported from the United States where making sure poor and black people don't vote is something of an art. They want to make it much harder for those with difficult and busy lives to get themselves on the electoral register. He wants voters to be the rich, settled old people on the west side of the constituency. Sadly for him, they all read the Daily Mail and are a teensy bit annoyed about the Granny Tax and the drop in the plutocrats' tax rate.

Entirely unrelated to this, of course, is Mr Uppal's majority of 691, about the size of a student accommodation block.

OK, Plutocrat Paul also popped up on BBC Breakfast grinding - yet again - his axe about Chuggers: Scourge of Britain's High Street. Again, he thinks it's a vote-winner. As I've said before, they can be a bit annoying, but a polite 'no thank-you' usually suffices. What annoys me about this campaign is that there's a much worse threat to Britain's High Streets. It's Tory economics. The Dark Place's High Street's shops are 30% empty. Those remaining are the mobile phone shops - owned by tax avoiders, Boots - owned by tax avoiders - and the usual cancerous chains. Uppal has nothing to say about any of this… but then he wouldn't because he's a multimillionaire property speculator who couldn't give a shit if there was a branch of Phones4U in your bedroom as long as he made some money from it.

Finally, the Egregious Member had an article on PoliticsHome which made my blood boil. In it, he wept crocodile tears for the poor by pointing out that his family was poor once. Yeah? Wonder where his speculation seed money came from? Perhaps his free education helped? Hi basic argument is that 'the poverty label' holds people back.

I think this is offensive. I'm damn sure there are a few lazy or defeated people who haven't the energy to improve their situations. I'm certain there are lots of people who aren't concerned about material things and have fulfilling lives while remaining poor. But I'm even more convinced that with 2.5 million people unemployed, thanks to a recession caused by Uppal's economics, individual failure of aspiration is not the root cause of poverty in this country. What the Tories are trying to do is individualise what is a structural problem. It's the dark side of the Britain's Got Talent culture: if you succeed, it's because you're special, if you fail, it's totally your fault. Nonsense: BGT stars who get into the charts are the product of a fiendish marketing machine. Those who fail are subject to the whims of the public as well as institutions.

It's just the same in economics. You can look in the mirror and chant 'I'm a winner' a hundred times every morning. You can send out your CV ten times a day, but if you're in the midst of the deepest slump since the 1930s, your chances are of course more limited.

Paul doesn't like labels.

it does people a disservice to make their primary identifier their bank balance (or lack thereof). People are more than how much money they have and people are more than their living conditions.

He would say that, wouldn't he? After all, he got quite angry when I pointed out that he's a millionaire, made from speculation, in stark contrast to his inner-city constituents. Uppal's narrative is that he used his individual genius to achieve business success. Nonsense, of course. Nobody rises alone. Uppal's free education helped. Family connections helped. So, no doubt, did business and political contacts. And what of his business? Has he employed anyone? Has he spread the wealth through a network of local businesses? Has he made anything? Is there anything to which he can point and say 'I made that'? No: his business is property speculation - the very industry at the heart of the recession.

How does Uppal propose to remove the stigma of the 'poverty label'? Simple. He voted for the Welfare Reform Bill, which explicitly makes large swathes of the population poorer by removing tax credits for the working poor (you have to work double the number of hours to qualify than before - despite extra hours not being available with 2.5m unemployed people chasing work). He voted to cut benefits for disabled children.

At the same time, he voted to cut the rate of tax for the rich, including himself. Clearly the poor are incentivised by hunger while he and his friends require further rewards.

Election Day will be May 2015. In the meantime, perhaps you should mention this stuff to him.