Members of North Staffs Green Party have followed the lead of the national party by appointing joint coordinators at their Annual General Meeting.
The meeting took place at the Rep Theatre in Shelton and saw Jade Green and Pete Latham elected to the Coordinator role.
Addressing members Pete Latham, who was previously the Chair, said he had enjoyed doing his previous role for the past three years and intended to use his time as Coordinator to ‘ engage with the public’ and get ‘out the message’ about Green politics.
Jade Green spoke about the plan she had developed to ‘maximize the impact the party is able to make’ with its limited resources.
Former Coordinator Jan Zablocki was elected to Chair the local party and, citing the recent floods as an example, said that they should be a ‘powerful trigger’ for people to take environmental issues seriously.
Other officer positions were taken by Martin Bailey, who joins the team for the first time as Election Officer and will also serve as Vice Chair. Rob Griffiths (Treasurer) and Adam Colclough (Press Officer) retain their places, with the latter also taking on the role of Membership Secretary.
Former general election candidate for Stoke Central Adam Colclough said he was ‘excited’ to be part of a leadership team that was ‘strong, united and determined to make an even bigger impact on the local political scene than we have so far’.
Tuesday, 25 February 2020
Friday, 21 February 2020
Petitions to the People.
Research published by the House of Commons Library shows that 23 million people have signed petitions on the parliament website since their introduction in 2015. This may have an influence on voter turnout at general elections.
In the 2017/19 parliament alone there were 8154 petitions signed by 15,166.387 unique users of the site. Out of these 456 gathered enough signatures to receive a response from government and 73 went on to be debated in Westminster Hall.
The Petitions Committee only considers petitions relating to matters for which the UK parliament or House of Commons has responsibility. Local councils and the three devolved parliaments have separate arrangements for receiving petitions.
There is no official minimum age for starting or signing a petition, so many who do so may be under the legal voting age of 18. Petitions can also be signed by Jon-UK citizens, who also cannot vote.
Research suggests though that a link may exist between the popularity of petitions and turnout at general elections.
In the ten constituencies with the highest number of petitions eight also had a higher than average voter turnout in 2019. At the same election nine of the ten constituencies with the fewest petitions also saw a lower than average number of people cast their vote.
Turnout across the UK at the 2019 general election was 67.3%, down 1.5 percentage points on 2017 (68.8%), but still the second highest since the salad days of Tony Blair in 1997. Out of the four home nations Scotland recorded the highest turnout (68.1%) and Northern Ireland the lowest (61.8%); the two English regions with the highest turnout were the South West (72.0%) and the South East (70.2%).
Factors influencing the popularity of petitions may, the research suggests, be linked to the perceived safety of the seat in question with voters who feel they have no other voice using them to highlight their concerns. However, they have also been shown to be popular in one very marginal seat (Cities of London and Westminster) and one very safe seat (Edinburgh North and Leith).
In 2019, an election the saw a more than usual number of previously safe seats fall, mostly going from Labour to the Conservatives, there seemed to be no clear link between turnout and the safety of a seat.
Age though may influence voter turnout, with an Ipsos-MORI poll suggesting 47% of voters aged 18-24 cast their ballot compared to 74% of over 65's, a widening of the gap in 2017 when, respectively, 54% and 71% of the same group voted.
On one level the popularity of petitioning parliament is something about which to feel thankful. In a country where exhausted apathy often seems to be out default response to politics any kind of engagement is. Only in this instance it is hard not to feel that to some extent we the public are being sold a pup.
There is something undeniably satisfying about signing a petition, it offers the illusion of being politically active without the fuss of having to leave the house. The question keeps nagging at me though, just what do all these petitions achieve?
In my experience it tends to be much less than the signatories thought they would. A response from government is very nice, but in terms of content they tend to be about as memorable as the hit single from the summer before last.
As for those that get 'debated', either in Westminster Hall or the less grand environs of your local town hall. The whole thing seems a lot more like an opportunity for representatives to grandstand than democracy in action; hot air alone does not make legislation.
Petitions have their part to play, not least when it comes to highlighting issues missed by politicians afflicted with the myopia of high office. The must though be backed by further action, no great change was ever brought about just because enough people typed their name in a text box.
If we shrink our engagement to signing petitions online then as actors in the drama of politics, we reduce our role to that of children. Easily pacified mites to be patted on the head and sent up to the nursery, letting the grownups downstairs get on with wrecking the rest of the house.
In the 2017/19 parliament alone there were 8154 petitions signed by 15,166.387 unique users of the site. Out of these 456 gathered enough signatures to receive a response from government and 73 went on to be debated in Westminster Hall.
The Petitions Committee only considers petitions relating to matters for which the UK parliament or House of Commons has responsibility. Local councils and the three devolved parliaments have separate arrangements for receiving petitions.
There is no official minimum age for starting or signing a petition, so many who do so may be under the legal voting age of 18. Petitions can also be signed by Jon-UK citizens, who also cannot vote.
Research suggests though that a link may exist between the popularity of petitions and turnout at general elections.
In the ten constituencies with the highest number of petitions eight also had a higher than average voter turnout in 2019. At the same election nine of the ten constituencies with the fewest petitions also saw a lower than average number of people cast their vote.
Turnout across the UK at the 2019 general election was 67.3%, down 1.5 percentage points on 2017 (68.8%), but still the second highest since the salad days of Tony Blair in 1997. Out of the four home nations Scotland recorded the highest turnout (68.1%) and Northern Ireland the lowest (61.8%); the two English regions with the highest turnout were the South West (72.0%) and the South East (70.2%).
Factors influencing the popularity of petitions may, the research suggests, be linked to the perceived safety of the seat in question with voters who feel they have no other voice using them to highlight their concerns. However, they have also been shown to be popular in one very marginal seat (Cities of London and Westminster) and one very safe seat (Edinburgh North and Leith).
In 2019, an election the saw a more than usual number of previously safe seats fall, mostly going from Labour to the Conservatives, there seemed to be no clear link between turnout and the safety of a seat.
Age though may influence voter turnout, with an Ipsos-MORI poll suggesting 47% of voters aged 18-24 cast their ballot compared to 74% of over 65's, a widening of the gap in 2017 when, respectively, 54% and 71% of the same group voted.
On one level the popularity of petitioning parliament is something about which to feel thankful. In a country where exhausted apathy often seems to be out default response to politics any kind of engagement is. Only in this instance it is hard not to feel that to some extent we the public are being sold a pup.
There is something undeniably satisfying about signing a petition, it offers the illusion of being politically active without the fuss of having to leave the house. The question keeps nagging at me though, just what do all these petitions achieve?
In my experience it tends to be much less than the signatories thought they would. A response from government is very nice, but in terms of content they tend to be about as memorable as the hit single from the summer before last.
As for those that get 'debated', either in Westminster Hall or the less grand environs of your local town hall. The whole thing seems a lot more like an opportunity for representatives to grandstand than democracy in action; hot air alone does not make legislation.
Petitions have their part to play, not least when it comes to highlighting issues missed by politicians afflicted with the myopia of high office. The must though be backed by further action, no great change was ever brought about just because enough people typed their name in a text box.
If we shrink our engagement to signing petitions online then as actors in the drama of politics, we reduce our role to that of children. Easily pacified mites to be patted on the head and sent up to the nursery, letting the grownups downstairs get on with wrecking the rest of the house.
Tuesday, 11 February 2020
Loosening the Grip of Poverty
'It is simply not right that we live in a society where so many people are locked in poverty', write the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in their UK Poverty Report for 2019/20.
The report paints a grim picture of life in the UK for individuals and households on low incomes. Although more people are in work poverty levels have risen thanks to factors such as housing costs, low wages and changes to the benefits system.
In work poverty has risen from 9.9% of the working population in 1997/98 to 12.7% in 2020.
Over the past two decades some progress has been made in addressing poverty amongst traditionally at-risk groups such as pensioners and children. However, in recent years much of this has started to unravel.
Amongst at risk groups disabled people are experiencing high levels of poverty, out of 13million people in the UK registered as having a disability 4 million are living in poverty. Out of 4.5million unpaid carers in the UK almost a million are living in poverty.
Households living in rented accommodation are also suffering, the decade long low interest rates that have been helpful to house buyers have brought them few benefits. Housing costs for low income households have risen sharply since 2000/01 with private renters being hardest hit.
Poverty is a trap that stifles lives, 7% people living in poverty have been there for two years or longer. Traditional narratives about 'working your way out of poverty offer them little in the way of comfort since some formidable barriers stand in their way.
These include not having enough hours work to make working really pay, costs imposed by expenses such as childcare and changes to the benefits system.
'Much of the world of work, social security and the housing market is designed based on decisions about our society's priorities,' write the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in their report, adding that ' we can choose to redesign them so they loosen poverty's grip and work better for everyone '.
Their vision for how this can be achieved involves action being taken in four key areas.
Getting more people into good jobs, many of the jobs that have been created in recent years are either poorly paid or insecure; in many cases both, more also needs to be done to improve pay and training opportunities for people doing this type of work. The benefits system has to be improved to make it more responsive to the needs of claimants. There is also a need for more good quality social housing and better rights for private renters.
As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation conclude lifting its most vulnerable members out of poverty is the responsibility of 'the whole of society, including central, devolved and local government, employers and civil society'. Adding that these partners must ' all work together for a prosperous UK where all areas are free from poverty'.
The report paints a grim picture of life in the UK for individuals and households on low incomes. Although more people are in work poverty levels have risen thanks to factors such as housing costs, low wages and changes to the benefits system.
In work poverty has risen from 9.9% of the working population in 1997/98 to 12.7% in 2020.
Over the past two decades some progress has been made in addressing poverty amongst traditionally at-risk groups such as pensioners and children. However, in recent years much of this has started to unravel.
Amongst at risk groups disabled people are experiencing high levels of poverty, out of 13million people in the UK registered as having a disability 4 million are living in poverty. Out of 4.5million unpaid carers in the UK almost a million are living in poverty.
Households living in rented accommodation are also suffering, the decade long low interest rates that have been helpful to house buyers have brought them few benefits. Housing costs for low income households have risen sharply since 2000/01 with private renters being hardest hit.
Poverty is a trap that stifles lives, 7% people living in poverty have been there for two years or longer. Traditional narratives about 'working your way out of poverty offer them little in the way of comfort since some formidable barriers stand in their way.
These include not having enough hours work to make working really pay, costs imposed by expenses such as childcare and changes to the benefits system.
'Much of the world of work, social security and the housing market is designed based on decisions about our society's priorities,' write the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in their report, adding that ' we can choose to redesign them so they loosen poverty's grip and work better for everyone '.
Their vision for how this can be achieved involves action being taken in four key areas.
Getting more people into good jobs, many of the jobs that have been created in recent years are either poorly paid or insecure; in many cases both, more also needs to be done to improve pay and training opportunities for people doing this type of work. The benefits system has to be improved to make it more responsive to the needs of claimants. There is also a need for more good quality social housing and better rights for private renters.
As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation conclude lifting its most vulnerable members out of poverty is the responsibility of 'the whole of society, including central, devolved and local government, employers and civil society'. Adding that these partners must ' all work together for a prosperous UK where all areas are free from poverty'.
Sunday, 2 February 2020
Brexit isn't the end, but of what exactly is it the beginning?
At the end of last week, the UK left the European Union after forty-seven years of mostly semi-detached membership. Despite the best efforts of the media to spin it as an 'event' the whole thing turned out to be a bit of a damp squib.
Leavers gathered outside Parliament and cheered the recorded chimes of Big Ben, a crowd funding campaign to have the real thing fired up for the occasion having raised little more than pocket change. In Glasgow Remain supporters clutched EU flags and tried to look suitably downcast for the cameras.
The great British public for the most part ignored both groups and instead stayed home to watch the football or wash their hair. Perhaps that's how it should be, history is as much about small things as major events.
Something important did happen on Friday night, just how important we don't get know; but it is likely to change everything.
Looking back with the perfect vision provided by hindsight it is remarkable that we thought joining the EU was ever going to work. During the referendum I backed the Remain campaign and still believe that being part of Europe is the most logical thing for the UK to do in a globalized world.
The thing is though people seldom do the logical thing, the stories we tell about who we are as a nation tend to get in the way. Britain, we assure ourselves, is a big country and could never fit into the straitjacket of EU membership, even though other countries manage to do so without losing their identity.
For the best part of half a century we had a sort of half out, half in relationship with Europe. On one hand following every rule handed down by Brussels as if it were holy writ and on the other dragging our feet like a stroppy teenager on a family walk. No wonder the EU didn't know what to do with the 'English Patient', apart from many put screens around our bed and hope we didn't disturb everyone else in the ward.
Now we are where we wanted to be, looking in from the outside, but do we have any idea what we are going to do with our new freedom? Beyond windy rhetoric and naive expectations have don't think we do.
Brexit was a Union Flag planted in the already existing fissure in our society. Voters in places like my hometown of Stoke-on-Trent voted overwhelmingly for it because they felt angry and ignored. Three years later they voted Tory because they were still being ignored and felt even angrier.
Leaving Europe won't solve any of their problems, in fact it could make most of them worse. There are two things the government could do next, one of which is difficult but will be beneficial in the long term, the other is simple and possibly deadly.
The hard choice is for Brexit to be the starting point for our journey to becoming an outward looking, fair and modern country. This will be a difficult and unsettling process that will require all concerned to give ground, it is not something that will be completed in a single political cycle.
The easy option is to sink into a comforting fantasy where 'plucky little Britain' stands alone against the rest of the world. All the tired tropes from the beating of Drake's drum to Spitfires soaring over the white cliffs of Dover will be rolled out like floats in a theme park parade.
Take the hard option and we could with time and effort we could have a more peaceful and prosperous future; take the easy one and all we’ve got to look forward to is populism and decline.
I'd like to hope we are big and bold enough as a nation to take the hard option because we know it is the right thing to do. The trouble is the decision is in the hands of a prime minister who is a populist to the ends of his artfully dishevelled hair.
Waking on the first morning in this new world I felt and still feel like the narrator in Philip Larkin's poem ‘Homage to a Government’, seeing the statues standing in the tree muffled squares and looking the same as ever; but knowing that everything has changed. I hope we can leave our children more than just blue passports.
The great British public for the most part ignored both groups and instead stayed home to watch the football or wash their hair. Perhaps that's how it should be, history is as much about small things as major events.
Something important did happen on Friday night, just how important we don't get know; but it is likely to change everything.
Looking back with the perfect vision provided by hindsight it is remarkable that we thought joining the EU was ever going to work. During the referendum I backed the Remain campaign and still believe that being part of Europe is the most logical thing for the UK to do in a globalized world.
The thing is though people seldom do the logical thing, the stories we tell about who we are as a nation tend to get in the way. Britain, we assure ourselves, is a big country and could never fit into the straitjacket of EU membership, even though other countries manage to do so without losing their identity.
For the best part of half a century we had a sort of half out, half in relationship with Europe. On one hand following every rule handed down by Brussels as if it were holy writ and on the other dragging our feet like a stroppy teenager on a family walk. No wonder the EU didn't know what to do with the 'English Patient', apart from many put screens around our bed and hope we didn't disturb everyone else in the ward.
Now we are where we wanted to be, looking in from the outside, but do we have any idea what we are going to do with our new freedom? Beyond windy rhetoric and naive expectations have don't think we do.
Brexit was a Union Flag planted in the already existing fissure in our society. Voters in places like my hometown of Stoke-on-Trent voted overwhelmingly for it because they felt angry and ignored. Three years later they voted Tory because they were still being ignored and felt even angrier.
Leaving Europe won't solve any of their problems, in fact it could make most of them worse. There are two things the government could do next, one of which is difficult but will be beneficial in the long term, the other is simple and possibly deadly.
The hard choice is for Brexit to be the starting point for our journey to becoming an outward looking, fair and modern country. This will be a difficult and unsettling process that will require all concerned to give ground, it is not something that will be completed in a single political cycle.
The easy option is to sink into a comforting fantasy where 'plucky little Britain' stands alone against the rest of the world. All the tired tropes from the beating of Drake's drum to Spitfires soaring over the white cliffs of Dover will be rolled out like floats in a theme park parade.
Take the hard option and we could with time and effort we could have a more peaceful and prosperous future; take the easy one and all we’ve got to look forward to is populism and decline.
I'd like to hope we are big and bold enough as a nation to take the hard option because we know it is the right thing to do. The trouble is the decision is in the hands of a prime minister who is a populist to the ends of his artfully dishevelled hair.
Waking on the first morning in this new world I felt and still feel like the narrator in Philip Larkin's poem ‘Homage to a Government’, seeing the statues standing in the tree muffled squares and looking the same as ever; but knowing that everything has changed. I hope we can leave our children more than just blue passports.
Friday, 24 January 2020
Too Many UK Households Still Living Below the Poverty Level Despite Record Levels of Employment.
Millions of households across the UK are living below the Minimum Income Standard (MIS), despite record levels of employment.
Figures provided by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in a report, Households Below a Minimum Income Standard; 2008/09-2017/18, written by Matt Padley and Juliet Stone show some 18.7 million households living below MIS.
Lone parents, pensioners and adults aged between 16 and 34 are most likely to be affected. Also affected are households living in social housing or private rental accommodation.
Employment figures published by the Office for National Statistics this week show that 76% of the UK population is in work (32.54 million people) is in work, the highest number since 1971.
Despite these record levels of employment 17.8% of households living below the MIS are in full time work, up from 11.8% in 2008/09. Workless households in the same position have risen from 48.6% to 60.3% over the same period.
The Minimum Income Standard represents the minimum socially acceptable standard of living.
The number of individuals in the UK living below the MIS has increased every year since 2008/09.
Figures released by the Trussell Trust, the charity running many UK food banks illustrate the impact of poverty on the health and life chances of individuals and families.
The mid-year statistics published by the Trussell Trust and based on a survey of 1100 people who used their food banks between April and September 2019 along with evidence from volunteers and referring agencies paint a stark picture.
94% of clients said they were facing real deprivation, meaning they could not afford to buy essentials. From these three quarters were in rent arrears, two thirds had been subject to benefit delays or sanctions and half were living in single person households. Most, 75%, reported experiencing at least one physical or mental health problem.
Food bank usage is not limited to individuals and households who are receiving out of work benefits. Being in full time work is no guarantee of financial security thanks to short term contracts and the growth of the gig-economy.
Creating an economy that gives a fair chance to all its actors and a social security system that protects the most vulnerable people is the major challenge facing the government. One that if it fails to meet will create economic and social instability that could last for decades.
Figures provided by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in a report, Households Below a Minimum Income Standard; 2008/09-2017/18, written by Matt Padley and Juliet Stone show some 18.7 million households living below MIS.
Lone parents, pensioners and adults aged between 16 and 34 are most likely to be affected. Also affected are households living in social housing or private rental accommodation.
Employment figures published by the Office for National Statistics this week show that 76% of the UK population is in work (32.54 million people) is in work, the highest number since 1971.
Despite these record levels of employment 17.8% of households living below the MIS are in full time work, up from 11.8% in 2008/09. Workless households in the same position have risen from 48.6% to 60.3% over the same period.
The Minimum Income Standard represents the minimum socially acceptable standard of living.
The number of individuals in the UK living below the MIS has increased every year since 2008/09.
Figures released by the Trussell Trust, the charity running many UK food banks illustrate the impact of poverty on the health and life chances of individuals and families.
The mid-year statistics published by the Trussell Trust and based on a survey of 1100 people who used their food banks between April and September 2019 along with evidence from volunteers and referring agencies paint a stark picture.
94% of clients said they were facing real deprivation, meaning they could not afford to buy essentials. From these three quarters were in rent arrears, two thirds had been subject to benefit delays or sanctions and half were living in single person households. Most, 75%, reported experiencing at least one physical or mental health problem.
Food bank usage is not limited to individuals and households who are receiving out of work benefits. Being in full time work is no guarantee of financial security thanks to short term contracts and the growth of the gig-economy.
Creating an economy that gives a fair chance to all its actors and a social security system that protects the most vulnerable people is the major challenge facing the government. One that if it fails to meet will create economic and social instability that could last for decades.
Tuesday, 21 January 2020
Parity of Esteem: Three Little Words Looking for a Larger Meaning.
Being diagnosed with a mental health condition can have an adverse effect of an individual's life chances. These can range from struggling to find or maintain work though fractured relationships to a lower life expectancy.
There is also a major impact on wider society of unmet mental health needs, for example, according to the Centre for Mental Health time off due to workplace stress cost UK employers £34.9million in 2016/17.
For the past decade there has been an emphasis of achieving 'parity of esteem', for mental illness to be accorded regard and resources matching those devoted to treating physical illnesses. In 2011 the then coalition government set out an expectation of 'parity of esteem' in its No Health Without Mental Health policy, in 2013 a similar commitment was written into the NHS Constitution for England.
To date though despite all the warm words and sincere promises delivery on the ground has been patchy to non-existent.
There is no uniform measure for how mental health services are delivered. Waiting times, an established if sometimes crude benchmark for performance in the NHS, are, apparently, impossible to correlate. Access to many services are not even subject to maximum waiting time standards.
A bigger problem is that Clinical Commissioning Groups, the bodies controlling th ding for a given area, do not have to ring fence money allocated to mental health services. The official line is that that funding should grow in line with that devoted to physical health services, often though the mental health budget is often raided to plug gaps elsewhere.
There are also some practical gaps that get in the way of parity of esteem becoming a reality. These include patchy diagnosis, GPs, usually the first medical professional someone asking support for their mental health will see have little training in this area. The days of busy doctors telling people to 'pull yourself together' may, thankfully, he mostly in the past. Unfortunately, they seem to have been replaced by one's where equally busy, if not busier ones, reach for the pill cupboard instead.
There is also the Dracula like ability of the stigma surrounding mental illness to keep resurrecting itself. Public awareness and understanding may have improved; but old prejudices did hard if they die at all.
In time for the last general election the Centre for Mental Health published its Towards Mental Health Equality report. This called on the incoming government to, amongst other things, create a cross party plan to embed an understanding of its likely impact on mental health in all areas of policy making.
This is a noble and necessary aspiration, unfortunately it's also one that is likely to founder on the rocks of official indifference. At least it is without a significant change in mind-set and actions.
Professionals, support groups and individual service users need to stop seeking salvation in a form of words. 'Parity of esteem' is as meaningless as all those other phrases that tell a marginalised group to accept less than their due and to smile as they do it.
The mental health community needs to learn from the liberation movements, that their political power exists and is embodied in their willingness to be difficult. It isn't good enough to be promised better services will be delivered on some tomorrow that never arrives; they need to be provided now.
'Parity of esteem' is meaningless, the real battle is for esteem for everyone.
There is also a major impact on wider society of unmet mental health needs, for example, according to the Centre for Mental Health time off due to workplace stress cost UK employers £34.9million in 2016/17.
For the past decade there has been an emphasis of achieving 'parity of esteem', for mental illness to be accorded regard and resources matching those devoted to treating physical illnesses. In 2011 the then coalition government set out an expectation of 'parity of esteem' in its No Health Without Mental Health policy, in 2013 a similar commitment was written into the NHS Constitution for England.
To date though despite all the warm words and sincere promises delivery on the ground has been patchy to non-existent.
There is no uniform measure for how mental health services are delivered. Waiting times, an established if sometimes crude benchmark for performance in the NHS, are, apparently, impossible to correlate. Access to many services are not even subject to maximum waiting time standards.
A bigger problem is that Clinical Commissioning Groups, the bodies controlling th ding for a given area, do not have to ring fence money allocated to mental health services. The official line is that that funding should grow in line with that devoted to physical health services, often though the mental health budget is often raided to plug gaps elsewhere.
There are also some practical gaps that get in the way of parity of esteem becoming a reality. These include patchy diagnosis, GPs, usually the first medical professional someone asking support for their mental health will see have little training in this area. The days of busy doctors telling people to 'pull yourself together' may, thankfully, he mostly in the past. Unfortunately, they seem to have been replaced by one's where equally busy, if not busier ones, reach for the pill cupboard instead.
There is also the Dracula like ability of the stigma surrounding mental illness to keep resurrecting itself. Public awareness and understanding may have improved; but old prejudices did hard if they die at all.
In time for the last general election the Centre for Mental Health published its Towards Mental Health Equality report. This called on the incoming government to, amongst other things, create a cross party plan to embed an understanding of its likely impact on mental health in all areas of policy making.
This is a noble and necessary aspiration, unfortunately it's also one that is likely to founder on the rocks of official indifference. At least it is without a significant change in mind-set and actions.
Professionals, support groups and individual service users need to stop seeking salvation in a form of words. 'Parity of esteem' is as meaningless as all those other phrases that tell a marginalised group to accept less than their due and to smile as they do it.
The mental health community needs to learn from the liberation movements, that their political power exists and is embodied in their willingness to be difficult. It isn't good enough to be promised better services will be delivered on some tomorrow that never arrives; they need to be provided now.
'Parity of esteem' is meaningless, the real battle is for esteem for everyone.
Wednesday, 8 January 2020
How Will Our New MPs Deal with This City's Old Problems?
Figures published late last week show that children born in Stoke-on-Trent are twice as likely to die in the first year of life as in almost any other part of the country.
The city has an infant mortality rate of 8.1 deaths in every 1000 live births, the national average is 3.9 In 2016, the last year for which figures are available there were 26 infant deaths out of 3293 live births.
Speaking to the Sentinel Dr Paul Edmonds-Jones director of adult social care, health integration and wellbeing for the city council said: 'a lot of work is taking place in the city to address this issue.'
Poor public health, poverty and poor housing have been cited as contributing factors to the high rate of infant mortality.
That a city like Stoke-on-Trent has a worryingly high infant mortality rate is shocking, but, sadly, not surprising. This city has been in the grip of serious societal problems for decades.
Mix that with the fall-out from ten years of austerity and it is hardly surprising that the most vulnerable people, children, are suffering.
It prompts an important question about the new political settlement, how will the city's three new Tory MPs deal with this city's old problems?
These include poor physical and mental health, low educational attainment, poor housing, and pockets of deep and intractable poverty. Added to this is an unspoken, but powerful, feeling that second best is more than we have a right to ask for.
The problems this city faces have taken decades to build up and will take as long again to resolve. They will also need considerable government investment delivered over a sustained period
That presents Jack Brereton, Jonathan Gullis and Jo Gideon with some major problems, solving which or failing to do so could decide their long-term future
The Conservative Party had a deep-seated antipathy towards 'big government' seeing it as the embodiment of interfering bureaucracy. Yet only the government had the reach of resources to solve the problems of cities like Stoke-on-Trent.
The standard Tory practice of delivering pious homilies about people 'pulling themselves up by their boot-straps' doesn't cut much mustard if you can't afford boots in the first place.
Government, big or small riding to the rescue of forgotten towns doesn't fit too well with the MO of their mercurial party leader PM Boris Johnson. The Johnson doctrine, such as it is, is to go in quick, grab all the low hanging fruit and milk the situation for every drop of publicity, then get out even quicker before any adverse consequences of your actions become apparent.
That play won't work with problems that have taken years to build to a head and will need as long again to resolve. Johnson may have promised to be in the corner of the UK's forgotten towns when the flashbulbs were popping on election night; he won't be there for the long haul.
Not unless his marching corps of new MPs representing constituencies nobody expected to turn blue go into bat for them anyway. If the rest are like our three amigos that's what they promised to do on election night.
Now it is time for words to be turned into action; the sort of action that could stop a promising career in its tracks. Two of their number will have to face that possibility if they are to be even halfway creditable representatives
Having shifted once the tectonic plates of politics can do so again and probably much more easily this time. The new Tories sitting for surprising seats will have to risk standing up to be counted; or face the possibility of getting counted out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)