The news earlier this week about Cllr Ian Jobling's defection to the Labour party came as a partial shock. I knew, from talking to Ian, that he wasn't going to stand for election again. I got a sense he was gradually bowing out. I knew he had some difficulties with some of the Coalition announcements but I believed that he, like me, would have felt able to lobby within the party on those things he didn't like. (And after all we have a great opportunity to do that given that any Lib Dem member can attend national conference and it is in Liverpool this September)
The whole subject though got me mulling over the reasons why people change parties (and I mean in the high profile way with the press coverage and the formal letter and all of that).
Thinking about why people defect/change parties (actually I hate the word defect as I think some of the meanings it carries aren't quite right for these situations) it seems to me that there are really three main reasons. I base this on being involved in, and watching politics for a long time. I expect many of those who defect have a mixture of motivations and it can be interesting to work out who has which motivations in which quantities.
First reason - I am going to lose so I will push off to another party now and therfore spare myself the embarassment/loss/ expense etc. This is not the same as changing parties to be offered a "safe seat" as you can make this change without actually expecting to gain anything. You do however, if your old party loses, have a retrospective justification and you can tell yourself you did the right thing. It's also not the same as simply bowing out or even sitting as an independent for a while as you do have to make a choice of destination.
Second reason - my career prospects are being harmed by my existing party/would be much better in another party so I am going. The obvious examples here are people who have been deselected or can see that the new party would offer them more positions. Often promises have to be made up front to the defector to make sure the move happens as this is bridge burning time. Someone who feels they are going to lose, but who is persuaded they will be offered a candidacy in the new party and will win there falls into this category.
Third reason - I have changed my mind on policy or the party I am in is now doing things I don't agree with. I am off to one that I do agree with. Obviously there are two necessary parts to this. You have to have the disagreement on policy and have decided that you can't resolve it through your own lobbying AND you have to have a destination you believe fits your views better. The second condition is important because otherwise you could just walk away from it, or become an independent.
Obviously there are other elements, like whether or not you are comfortable with the culture of a particular party (they can be very different) or whether you get on with the people. But on the whole I think the three categories I have mentioned are the main drivers and those who defect have one of these as their primary motivation (even if they have elements of the others in the "mix".
Clearly the only person who really knows about the mix of Ian's motivation is Ian. But when I read the press coverage I did feel that I had to take some of it with a pinch of salt. Labour is the party that took us to an illegal war and tried to introduce ID cards for goodness sake. These are both things Ian spoke strongly about.
Interestingly some people have commented that the timing of this defection announcement was faulty because it was a "dead news" period. Actually that's not a great argument as certainly Emma Nicholson's defection to the Lib Dems years ago was in another allegedly "dead news" period and was planned to be so. These times, when there is not a lot of news around, can actually be better in terms of maximising coverage.
Linked to this however is the suggestion that the timing was faulty as leaving this until the eve of Lib Dem conference would have had more of an effect. It's a possible argument although from what I know of Ian Jobing he would have had some difficulty in maintaining a pretence/lying between now and mid September.
Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Thursday, 19 August 2010
Park Survey
A quick reminder about the on-line survey about Garston Park. This is organised by the Friends of Garston Park (more info at www.fogp.blogspot.com)
The link to the survey is here
The link to the survey is here
Garston waste plant plan update
We'd hoped by now to have the result of the Public Inquiry into the plans by private company Jack Allen Holdings to build a waste plant at Garston Dock (next to the Cressington Heath housing development)
Frustratingly we are going to have to wait longer.
The Inspector has written to the City Council and to the applicant asking for more information. The deadline for that to be received is not until the end of this month. It looks looks as if we may not hear until October.
This is hard for everyone who cares about Garston but there is nothing we can do to speed up this process.
As soon as I have more news I'll blog about it. There is also a website set up by local residents as part of the fight against the scheme. It's at www.southliverpoolresidents.org.uk
Frustratingly we are going to have to wait longer.
The Inspector has written to the City Council and to the applicant asking for more information. The deadline for that to be received is not until the end of this month. It looks looks as if we may not hear until October.
This is hard for everyone who cares about Garston but there is nothing we can do to speed up this process.
As soon as I have more news I'll blog about it. There is also a website set up by local residents as part of the fight against the scheme. It's at www.southliverpoolresidents.org.uk
Blogging interrupted.
Feeling rather guilty looking at the date of my last post. Must be more organised about blogging in future!
Thursday, 29 July 2010
Schools delegation to London
Yesterday I was part of the cross-party delegation that went down to London to lobby Lord Hill of the education department about schools funding in Liverpool.
When I say cross party, I was the only non Labour politician there but there's not a lot I can do about the fact that all the Liverpool MPs are currently Labour! (Well not till 2015 anyway)
I don't have a lot of experience of lobbying ministers (well none actually) but it seemed to go well. We got a hearing and some commitments to let us input into the Government's capital spending review.
The Council has an alternative funding plan. It still needs public money but it also includes some borrowing and some private sector investment. I haven't actually seen this plan but the Lib Dems have committed to working to take the ideas forward in a cross party way.
There are two new academies - one in South Liverpool - waiting for news about their building funding situation. They are in a slightly different situation as they weren't included in the earlier BSF announcement. The minister said we should hear about this very soon. So watch this space.
UPDATE:
A rather belated update. The news earlier this month (I mean August not July) was that the funding is coming through for the South Liverpool Academy (the one that effectively combines New Heys and St Benedicts).
When I say cross party, I was the only non Labour politician there but there's not a lot I can do about the fact that all the Liverpool MPs are currently Labour! (Well not till 2015 anyway)
I don't have a lot of experience of lobbying ministers (well none actually) but it seemed to go well. We got a hearing and some commitments to let us input into the Government's capital spending review.
The Council has an alternative funding plan. It still needs public money but it also includes some borrowing and some private sector investment. I haven't actually seen this plan but the Lib Dems have committed to working to take the ideas forward in a cross party way.
There are two new academies - one in South Liverpool - waiting for news about their building funding situation. They are in a slightly different situation as they weren't included in the earlier BSF announcement. The minister said we should hear about this very soon. So watch this space.
UPDATE:
A rather belated update. The news earlier this month (I mean August not July) was that the funding is coming through for the South Liverpool Academy (the one that effectively combines New Heys and St Benedicts).
Tuesday, 27 July 2010
Education - why rush the decision.
I am the first to admit that I am not 100 percent informed about Academies.
But it must be wrong to rush the legislation through the way it has been.
Lib Dem MP John Pugh wanted to amend it so that, if the governing body of a school was split on whether to go for Academy status, there would be a ballot of parents. This seems eminently sensible. It wouldn't necessarily stop the process (although if there was a lot of opposition it could) but it would give those most associated with the school a chance to have a say and give the governing body a chance to take the temperature of parents.
His attempt to amend the Bill failed though.
I've pasted below an extract from Hansard (the official record of what is said in Parliament) which covers part of his speech.
Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD): When were elected this May-God, it seems years ago-we all knew that there was some prospect that politics in this place might never be quite the same again. Many of us, frankly, welcomed that. The huge and welcome influx of new Members gave us all hope that things could possibly be different. That, along with the odd arithmetic of this place and the challenging nature of the country’s problems, seemed to dictate that the way ahead would be through rational consensus and for a while-all too short a while-it appeared that tribalism and command-and-control politics were dead; the Chamber and Committees would be important and the policy would have to be evidence-led, much to the disappointment of the media, whose preference is always for a good scrap.
What do we have with amendments to the Bill, however? We have the spectacle of Ministers who have already told us that they will accept no amendment, period, and the sight of Whips new and old cracking their knuckles off-stage and perfecting basilisk-like stares in the mirror, persuading people not to vote for amendments such as amendment 8 and others that, it could be argued, align with the spirit and improve the detail of the Bill. Paradoxically, they are doing that because they assume that is how coalition politics work. I say paradoxically, because the amendment-denying Ministers in front of us, whose agents the Whips are, seem to be the most mature, civilised and benign advocates of the new politics. I personally cannot associate myself with the recent comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron); (Tim Farron referred to Tories as "toxic) nor can I afford to drink in the Boot and Flogger (this is the pub in which David Davies the Conservative was overheard saying some uncomplimentary things about the Coalition) . I am simply moving an amendment with which the Committee should be comfortable and, frankly, which any Member of any party can and should be free to support.
In the event of a governing body being divided, amendment 8 obliges a school to hold a ballot if a governor or a minority of governors object to an application for academy status. It therefore provides a restraint on a motivated group of governors misrepresenting or riding roughshod over parents’ wishes.
Mr Evans, you might recall that under Mrs Thatcher, in the Education Reform Act 1988, a parental ballot was an essential precondition of the change to grant-maintained status in any school. There were votes across the country on those matters. Sadly, subsequent Governments seem to have lost interests in the views of parents and, in my view, have disempowered parents, with one exception. Tony Blair insisted that the change from grammar school status required a parental ballot and that condition survives and is effectively incorporated in this Bill.
Can anyone in this Chamber give me an argument for why grammar school parents should be balloted before the status of their school changes and parents of children at other schools should not? I am at a loss to find such an argument. Why should grammar school parents have a right that primary school parents, comprehensive school parents and special school parents do not have? Will anyone agree with the former and present me with a good argument for voting against the latter?
But it must be wrong to rush the legislation through the way it has been.
Lib Dem MP John Pugh wanted to amend it so that, if the governing body of a school was split on whether to go for Academy status, there would be a ballot of parents. This seems eminently sensible. It wouldn't necessarily stop the process (although if there was a lot of opposition it could) but it would give those most associated with the school a chance to have a say and give the governing body a chance to take the temperature of parents.
His attempt to amend the Bill failed though.
I've pasted below an extract from Hansard (the official record of what is said in Parliament) which covers part of his speech.
Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD): When were elected this May-God, it seems years ago-we all knew that there was some prospect that politics in this place might never be quite the same again. Many of us, frankly, welcomed that. The huge and welcome influx of new Members gave us all hope that things could possibly be different. That, along with the odd arithmetic of this place and the challenging nature of the country’s problems, seemed to dictate that the way ahead would be through rational consensus and for a while-all too short a while-it appeared that tribalism and command-and-control politics were dead; the Chamber and Committees would be important and the policy would have to be evidence-led, much to the disappointment of the media, whose preference is always for a good scrap.
What do we have with amendments to the Bill, however? We have the spectacle of Ministers who have already told us that they will accept no amendment, period, and the sight of Whips new and old cracking their knuckles off-stage and perfecting basilisk-like stares in the mirror, persuading people not to vote for amendments such as amendment 8 and others that, it could be argued, align with the spirit and improve the detail of the Bill. Paradoxically, they are doing that because they assume that is how coalition politics work. I say paradoxically, because the amendment-denying Ministers in front of us, whose agents the Whips are, seem to be the most mature, civilised and benign advocates of the new politics. I personally cannot associate myself with the recent comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron); (Tim Farron referred to Tories as "toxic) nor can I afford to drink in the Boot and Flogger (this is the pub in which David Davies the Conservative was overheard saying some uncomplimentary things about the Coalition) . I am simply moving an amendment with which the Committee should be comfortable and, frankly, which any Member of any party can and should be free to support.
In the event of a governing body being divided, amendment 8 obliges a school to hold a ballot if a governor or a minority of governors object to an application for academy status. It therefore provides a restraint on a motivated group of governors misrepresenting or riding roughshod over parents’ wishes.
Mr Evans, you might recall that under Mrs Thatcher, in the Education Reform Act 1988, a parental ballot was an essential precondition of the change to grant-maintained status in any school. There were votes across the country on those matters. Sadly, subsequent Governments seem to have lost interests in the views of parents and, in my view, have disempowered parents, with one exception. Tony Blair insisted that the change from grammar school status required a parental ballot and that condition survives and is effectively incorporated in this Bill.
Can anyone in this Chamber give me an argument for why grammar school parents should be balloted before the status of their school changes and parents of children at other schools should not? I am at a loss to find such an argument. Why should grammar school parents have a right that primary school parents, comprehensive school parents and special school parents do not have? Will anyone agree with the former and present me with a good argument for voting against the latter?
Friday, 23 July 2010
Spending money on the right things
The Labour Cabinet this morning agreed to spend nearly £400,000 on a "Liverpool Day" at the Shanghai Expo.
The decision is being "called in" by the Lib Dems and (I understand) also by the Liberal Party.
The "call in" is a sort of request to the Cabinet to think again. It'll be discussed at the Regeneration and Transport Committee next week.
The reason we're challenging this is that we don't think this is the right time for extra spending (and this is extra spending) on events in Shanghai.
Significantly the money allocated to this could instead save the free swimming scheme for children and young people.
I thought people would be interested in exactly what they plan to spend the money on.
Pasted below is a list of the items. It doesn't add up to the full amount but I assume the rest goes on Councillor/officer travel to the event as I know some Labour Councillors are down to go.
Spending list from Cabinet Paperwork.
RLPO Travel & Subsistence Costs 1 60,000.00 Not Contracted Currently
Scaffold & MD Travel & Subsistence Costs 1 2,500.00 Not Contracted Currently
Orchestral Manoeuvre in the Dark Travel & Subsistence Costs 9 ,050.00 Not Contracted Currently
Pagoda Travel & Subsistence Costs 1 2,000.00 Not Contracted Currently
Roger Phillips Travel & Subsistence Costs 3 ,000.00 Not Contracted Currently
Wombats Travel & Subsistence Costs 6 ,000.00 Not Contracted Currently
McCartney 6ix Toys Attendance 7 ,500.00 Not Contracted Currently
Sound City Music Event and Sound Rig from Capital Sound 3 0,000.00 Not Contracted Currently
Liverpool Day Events Overheads 3 7,000.00 Not Contracted Currently
250,000 Lapel Badge Giveaways 2 5,000.00 Not Contracted Currently
Legacy Gift For Expo Museum 1 0,000.00 Not Contracted Currently
Shanghai Side PR 3 7,000.00 Not Contracted Currently
349,050.00
The decision is being "called in" by the Lib Dems and (I understand) also by the Liberal Party.
The "call in" is a sort of request to the Cabinet to think again. It'll be discussed at the Regeneration and Transport Committee next week.
The reason we're challenging this is that we don't think this is the right time for extra spending (and this is extra spending) on events in Shanghai.
Significantly the money allocated to this could instead save the free swimming scheme for children and young people.
I thought people would be interested in exactly what they plan to spend the money on.
Pasted below is a list of the items. It doesn't add up to the full amount but I assume the rest goes on Councillor/officer travel to the event as I know some Labour Councillors are down to go.
Spending list from Cabinet Paperwork.
RLPO Travel & Subsistence Costs 1 60,000.00 Not Contracted Currently
Scaffold & MD Travel & Subsistence Costs 1 2,500.00 Not Contracted Currently
Orchestral Manoeuvre in the Dark Travel & Subsistence Costs 9 ,050.00 Not Contracted Currently
Pagoda Travel & Subsistence Costs 1 2,000.00 Not Contracted Currently
Roger Phillips Travel & Subsistence Costs 3 ,000.00 Not Contracted Currently
Wombats Travel & Subsistence Costs 6 ,000.00 Not Contracted Currently
McCartney 6ix Toys Attendance 7 ,500.00 Not Contracted Currently
Sound City Music Event and Sound Rig from Capital Sound 3 0,000.00 Not Contracted Currently
Liverpool Day Events Overheads 3 7,000.00 Not Contracted Currently
250,000 Lapel Badge Giveaways 2 5,000.00 Not Contracted Currently
Legacy Gift For Expo Museum 1 0,000.00 Not Contracted Currently
Shanghai Side PR 3 7,000.00 Not Contracted Currently
349,050.00
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)