A Mayor: Taking Birmingham into the 21st Century

30 March, 2012 Leave a Comment

Many people that I know that are instinctively against the idea of a Mayor for Birmingham – usually because it is a Tory idea, an American idea or a bad idea. I admire many of those people, and politically dislike a few of them.

They all have one thing in common: an aversion to change. Change can be a good thing, and change can be a bad thing. It can be a worrying thing and it can be difficult to handle. But change, for want of a better word, is a good thing.

Take the Birmingham Mayoral campaign. In May, at the same time as the local elections the people of Birmingham will have their chance to choose a leader for their city. A city that I have lived in for all of my life. A Mayor in Birmingham could really change the way that the City is run.

Will a Mayor be a good thing for Birmingham?

Yes, undoubtedly. Even if you ignore the experience of other large cities with directly elected mayors, it will be a positive for two simple reasons.

Firstly, it will provide real leadership.

If you ask people who their local councillor is they would probably struggle to tell you. I would doubt that more than 10% of people could tell you that Mike Whitby is Leader and Paul Tilsley Deputy Leader of the Council. A Mayor could remedy that by providing a single, unifying figure for the City.

In the 2011 local elections just below 1/2 of Brummies voted for elections to a council that has a budget of £3.5bn. A sorry state of affairs, and one that can be remedied by a Mayor –  a mayor who will be accountable to each and every voter. They will serve every resident in Birmingham. They will be able to direct council services across Birmingham to improve schools, rubbish collection, and all the other council services that we use. They will also be able to exercise real leadership in the council machine – As things stand Councillors outside of of the Executive have very little power to influence Council policy or hold the City Council’s leadership to account.

Secondly, a Mayor will bring investment into the City.

The last Labour Administration bought in a vast amount of national and international investment . Birmingham was a transformed city. It can be so again.  Attracting the investment, jobs and growth that Birmingham needs will be a task fit for the new Mayor.

London, the best example of where a directly elected mayor can work, is once again a global city. Ken Livingstone’s time as Mayor of London showed what could be done with active local leadership – the Olympics and Transport for London being the two most significant achievements.

We deserve the same treatment as London.

Birmingham is a great city, but it could be better. A Mayor would make us a globally ambitious city. In times of fiscal austerity a Mayor could better direct how taxpayers money is spent in the City and get value for money whilst ensuring that the people’s wishes are fulfilled.

A Mayor for Birmingham could transform the City. Do not let this opportunity disappear.

 

 

NB: As one of the 3,000 Labour members in Birmingham I will have an opportunity to vote for our candidate for Mayor. If there is a “yes” vote then I will be supporting Liam Byrne. 

 

 

 

Share on TumblrSubmit to StumbleUponSave on DeliciousDigg ThisShare via email

Filed under Birmingham, European Politics, Labour, Lib Dem, Politics, Tory Tagged with , , , , ,

Labour Fights Back

6 January, 2012 2 Comments

 

Well, sort of.

Labour’s had a bit of a bumpy start to 2012*. We started the week with the excellent Liam Byrne making very sensible noises in the Guardian about how we can reform welfare, and reform the public’s perception of Labour on welfare. We saw that Labour should restore the idea of “something for something” and that the Government should reward and assist those who develop their skills, go out into the world and better themselves and those around them. Byrne also said that we should not defend people who cheat the benefits system. They are the undeserving in society.

Next up, we had the Shadow Secretary of State for Education Stephen Twigg who made a speech to the North of England Education Conference which floated the policy proposal of longer school days to prepare pupils better for the world of work. Twigg said:

‘The workers down tools when they hear the bell ring, and are strictly separated into production lines, focused on building the constituent parts of knowledge, maths, science etc.  At the same time, students are rigidly separated. Taught in batches, not by ability or interest, but by their own date of manufacture. While noble in its origins, this 19th century form of industrial education feels distinctly ill at ease with the demands of a modern, globalised economy, which demands collaboration, innovation, entrepreneurship, and an appreciation that developing value comes not from a more efficient forms of production, but more skilled ones.’

Another excellent intervention from another of Labour’s best voices in the Shadow Cabinet. Proposing to reform education by making such a simple, easy to communicate change is a positive move by Labour on education. It shows that the Party can do more than just whinge about Free Schools and Academies. It shows that we can articulate our own vision rather than just reacting to the Government. A great move.

Finally Jim Murphy MP intervened on the economic position of Labour by saying that Labour should be credible on cuts, and specified the exact cuts that he would have made. Murphy said:

“It is important to be both credible and popular when it comes to defence investment and the economics of defence,” Murphy said. “There is a difference between populism and popularity. Credibility is the bridge away from populism and towards popularity. It is difficult to sustain popularity without genuine credibility. At a time on defence when the government is neither credible nor popular it is compulsory that Labour is both.”

Of course, he is only talking about defence. I’d hope that this signals a shift in Labour’s thinking towards each Shadow departmental team specifying what it would be doing if it were in Government now. The Public think that the Coalition is right to cut spending – We should too.

Less than helpful we had the intervention of Maurice Glasman. He told the Guardian that:

‘On the face of it, these look like bad times for Labour and for Ed Miliband’s leadership. There seems to be no strategy, no narrative and little energy.

‘Ed is going to have to show some leadership and courage if the political dynamics of this year are to be different.’

But, of course, the main focus of his fire was Ed Balls:

“The problem with Brownite political economy is that, even though it was true that a 3% deficit was not excessive in the context of economic growth, it was debt that was growing at the time, rather than the real economy. A vast, sustained expansion in private debt fuelled the financial sector throughout Brown’s tenure as chancellor and then prime minister.”

And then, of course, we had Diane Abbott’s “racist” tweet:

Frankly, I think that from from a Shadow Minister this is unacceptable. I stand by my opinion that she should have been sacked from her position. It may have been out of context – It wasn’t meant to be read by as many people as it was.
This week has shown the best, and the worst, that Labour has to offer. We have three bright, progressive politicians all of whom could intelligently express their own vision. We also had one Lord whom John Prescott asked to “bugger off”, and then we had Diane Abbott making an utterly inappropriate comment.
More of the first please. Labour has a unique opportunity to reinvent itself in the next few years and break with the past. It’s time for the Party to say more about the future.
*We also had this, which is the best news from this week.
Share on TumblrSubmit to StumbleUponSave on DeliciousDigg ThisShare via email

Filed under Economics, Labour, Politics, Work & Pensions Tagged with , , , , , ,

It’s time for Labour to be the People’s Party.

4 January, 2012 1 Comment


A couple of days ago, Liam Byrne the Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (with the support of Ed Miliband), wrote that Labour needs to change it’s policies on welfare. I’m inclined to agree with him. As a Party, the Public’s perception of us on welfare is not good. Byrne writes that “On jobs and benefits we need another tough-minded social revolution”. He’s right.

It’s very easy for Labour people to say that this is about pandering to the Daily Mail’s agenda on welfare. It isn’t. They say that we should tackle jobs and growth first. They are partly correct. We need to cope with the vast unemployment, particularly youth and female unemployment that is present in our society. We also need to deal with a problem that Labour didn’t do enough to fix when we were in Government – Welfare.

Byrne’s article in the Guardian reminds us that one of the 5 societal ills that Beveridge identified in his famous report was idleness. Labour has an opportunity to put forward it’s own vision whilst it is in opposition. We are not constrained by being in Government, so we can afford, occasionally to go a little bit off piste, and be bold.

Its time for Labour to restore the idea of “something for something”. The Government should reward those who develop their skills, go out into the world and better themselves. Benefits should not be there for people who can’t be bothered to get up in the morning.

Benefits should be there for the people who really need the support of the Government. The people who are disabled, unwell, and unfit and are workless. The people who cannot fend for themselves. It is absolutely right that Labour stand up for these people. The Tories and Lib Dems won’t. They are cutting Employment and Support Allowance.

It is important that we restore the link between contributing to and receiving from society. In order to do this, the benefit system should be radically changed to protect those who are in real need, whilst encouraging those that can work, whether full or part time, back into work.

HMRC Income and DWP Benefit Expenditure, 2001-2011

The total cost of benefits has increased by £50bn between 2001 and 2011. This is unsustainable.

 

Reform of the welfare state is vitally important. It should be there to provide a safety net for those that needed. It should be there for those who contribute to society. Owen Jones on LabourList says that Byrne has “capitulated” by criticising “scroungers”. It is ridiculous -Jones effectively states that Labour is betraying its working class roots by not sheltering those who don’t work when they can.

 

Cost of Benefit Fraud and Error, 2001-2011

Benefit Fraud has returned to 2001 levels and it will only get worse as the economy weakens - especially if we head back into a recession.

 

Peter Watt at Labour Uncut identifies some Labour principles that we should adopt:

1)     People who are in receipt of welfare payments are not “scroungers” and the use of this sort of language is not helpful. It panders to prejudice, rather than tackling the underlying problem and is not where Labour, as a party of social justice, should ever be.  Not accepting this language is not however the same as understanding that some people feel this.

2)     There are benefits for those who are temporarily unable to work, who need supporting and ultimately helping back into work or to stay in work. And there are benefits for those who are not able to work at all. People in the latter category, those for instance who have a disability that makes work impossible, and who have no other means of support, should be supported by the state come-what-may. The extent to which we do this is a measure of the sort of society that we believe in.

3)     People who claim benefits that they are not entitled to, or who abuse the system in order to avoid work, undermine the system for those who are entitled to benefits. Does this mean that we are allowing notions of the deserving and undeserving poor? Yes, too right we are. If you can work and choose not to, then you do not deserve to be supported by those who are working. And we should not be ashamed to say so or to clamp down on them. Allowing people to live a life on benefits if they are able to work is not only unfair on tax payers it is also immoral. It condemns thousands to a life of poverty, kills aspiration and can all too easily become inter-generational.

4)     People should expect to have to pay something for the benefits that they receive.  We all understand how insurance works – you pay a premium so that if the insured event occurs you can claim. If you have never worked and never paid tax then you should not expect to be able to claim. Does this mean that there shouldn’t be a safety net? No. But it certainly means that it should be just that – a safety net with limits. If you have paid your premium, then you should expect to be reasonably supported. But this support should be linked to expectations that you will endeavour to move off benefits as soon as you are able.

All excellent statements, which remind those who choose to criticise the Labour Leadership that this isn’t about demonising anybody but the criminal few who try to have it easy.

An added dash of responsibility will do no Labour any harm at all, and may serve as a reminder that this is about the minority who choose to break the law, lie, and steal from society. Labour needs to show that it is on the side of the working man and woman.


 

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Share on TumblrSubmit to StumbleUponSave on DeliciousDigg ThisShare via email

Filed under All, Economics, Labour, Politics, UK Politics, Work & Pensions Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , ,