A century on from women winning the vote local politics in England is still a long way away from representing both genders equally.
At the local elections held in May this year 8410 councilors were elected in England, just 34% of these were female. On 14% of councils female councilors are outnumbered three to one by male colleagues.
There has been a small increase in representation since the 2015 local elections. Out of the three main parties the percentage of female Labour councilors has risen to 40% from 37%; for the Tories the number has gone up from 26% to 30%; the Liberal Democrats remain unchanged on 33%.
Smaller parties also show variable levels of representation, 44% of Green Party councilors are women, compared to 20% for Ukip. Out of 2686 Independents elected 28% are women.
The Fawcett Society, a leading campaign group on women's issues, has published data suggesting it could take another 32 years to achieve a gender balance.
Over the past two years the Fawcett Society has worked with the Local Government Information Unit and Women2Win to produce three reports on local government reform. This latest report was produced in partnership with Democracy Club.
Democracy Club is an online based organization that works to improve access to information about the democratic process and identify ways of improving voter engagement.
All three reports found that female councilors are held back by structural and cultural barriers within the local government system as currently organized.
Fawcett Society chief executive Sam Smethers said that although national attention was currently focused on Brexit a shortage of women on local councils meant 'vital issues like cars for older people, planning decisions and council tax will continue to be decided by men'.
The Fawcett Society is calling for the three main parties to do more to engage women in local government by setting targets to improve representation. They also want to see more data gathered on candidate diversity and better availability of childcare and disability support.
Sam Smethers said that with most seats going to incumbents at the last election 'the space for change is limited, all of the parties need to set out their plan of action to change this; now'.
At a time when the protracted dispute over Brexit and rising levels of inequality are creating social and political tensions it is more important than ever that local and national government is representative.
The findings of the Fawcett Society, backed by those of other campaign groups, show that that is far from the case.
This, as Sam Smethers says means decisions that impact on the lives of everyone are taken disproportionally through the viewpoint of a single gender. The result can only ever be an increase of the structural inequalities that are proving so dangerously divisive.
There is also a case to be made that a more gender equal legislature in both local and national politics would change the way the system operates. Hopefully this would see a change in the language of politics away from conflict towards conciliation and reasonable compromise.
The benefits of change are clear; as are the risks inherent in retaining a status quo that has outlived its relevance. What is much less clear is how a local government system battered by austerity and where parties often struggle to find candidates of either gender can find the impetus to bring it about.
Thursday, 18 July 2019
Wednesday, 10 July 2019
Stoke council voters to back a climate emergency motion, but is it too little too late?
Members of Stoke-on-Trent City Council approved a motion to declare a Climate Emergency at the meeting of the full council held at the Civic Centre on 4th July.
The motion was proposed by Labour members Candi Chetwynd and Jane Ashworth and called on the council to take clear steps to address the climate crisis.
These included setting up a Climate Change Liaison Group, divesting pension funds held by the council from investments in fossil fuels and working with neighbouring authorities on carbon reduction projects.
The motion also called for the council to take ‘proactive steps to include young people and the public’ in developing a plan of action.
The point about the necessity of tackling climate change now was made with customary eloquence by environmentalist Sir David Attenborough from the stage of the Glastonbury festival the weekend before.
Unsurprisingly for a national treasure expounding on one of the hottest topics of the day he got an ovation louder than the one given to Kylie. Louder too than the one Jeremy Corbyn got in 2017.
There rests the problem, just because an issue is at the forefront of the public consciousness at a given moment, it doesn’t always follow that something will get done about it.
What Labour were doing on that scorching hot Thursday afternoon last week was to introduce a motion that would bring the council, business, campaign groups and most importantly, the public together to tackle climate change.
Moving the motion Councillor Ashworth said that the city and the rest of the country had to ‘listen to scientists’ when they warned about the dangers posed by climate change or risk ‘spiralling into a climate catastrophe’.
Seconding Councillor Chetwynd said that climate change was a ‘monster of our own making’, posing the greatest threat to our society and that the ‘time for action is now!’
Who could disagree with that? The ruling Conservative and Independent group, that’s who.
They went about if not killing the motion, then certainly robbing it of some much-needed oomph through a few, seemingly minor, but strategic changes of wording in an amendment tabled by Councillor Daniel Jellyman.
He spoke about the need to meet the twin challenges of growing the local economy and protecting the environment. The changes he proposed included re-naming the liaison group to make it a ‘commission’ that would ‘hear evidence’ from the public and removing the call for the creation of a plan for Stoke-on-Trent to become carbon neutral in favour to one for ‘addressing climate concerns’.
Despite disapproving looks from several on the Labour benches, including the proposer, the motion was duly passed.
That, you might be tempted to say is a good thing. After all, isn’t it more important to act on climate change than worry about the wording of the call to do so?
Up to a point, however in politics language is hugely important and can often be a barrier to turning good intentions into constructive actions.
Anyone who has ever been involved with a public consultation knows that the gulf between those running it ‘hearing’ evidence from the public and listening to what they say is huge. Particularly if what the public has to say is likely to make things awkward for major corporations with campaign donations to invest.
Addressing climate concerns, rather than coming up with a plan of action allows enough wriggle room to see that nothing beyond publishing a report few people will bother to read gets done.
It is one of the quaint traditions of local government that each meeting of the full council begins with prayers. Last week the cleric leading them called on councillors to act with responsibility on climate change because we hold this world in trust for future generations.
Even allowing for hyperbole if half of what scientists say about the speed and severity of climate change is true; then the time for such self-serving foolishness is long past.
In these doubting days I’m not sure how many people in the chamber last Thursday believe in a higher power. I for one though would say amen to that.
The motion was proposed by Labour members Candi Chetwynd and Jane Ashworth and called on the council to take clear steps to address the climate crisis.
These included setting up a Climate Change Liaison Group, divesting pension funds held by the council from investments in fossil fuels and working with neighbouring authorities on carbon reduction projects.
The motion also called for the council to take ‘proactive steps to include young people and the public’ in developing a plan of action.
The point about the necessity of tackling climate change now was made with customary eloquence by environmentalist Sir David Attenborough from the stage of the Glastonbury festival the weekend before.
Unsurprisingly for a national treasure expounding on one of the hottest topics of the day he got an ovation louder than the one given to Kylie. Louder too than the one Jeremy Corbyn got in 2017.
There rests the problem, just because an issue is at the forefront of the public consciousness at a given moment, it doesn’t always follow that something will get done about it.
What Labour were doing on that scorching hot Thursday afternoon last week was to introduce a motion that would bring the council, business, campaign groups and most importantly, the public together to tackle climate change.
Moving the motion Councillor Ashworth said that the city and the rest of the country had to ‘listen to scientists’ when they warned about the dangers posed by climate change or risk ‘spiralling into a climate catastrophe’.
Seconding Councillor Chetwynd said that climate change was a ‘monster of our own making’, posing the greatest threat to our society and that the ‘time for action is now!’
Who could disagree with that? The ruling Conservative and Independent group, that’s who.
They went about if not killing the motion, then certainly robbing it of some much-needed oomph through a few, seemingly minor, but strategic changes of wording in an amendment tabled by Councillor Daniel Jellyman.
He spoke about the need to meet the twin challenges of growing the local economy and protecting the environment. The changes he proposed included re-naming the liaison group to make it a ‘commission’ that would ‘hear evidence’ from the public and removing the call for the creation of a plan for Stoke-on-Trent to become carbon neutral in favour to one for ‘addressing climate concerns’.
Despite disapproving looks from several on the Labour benches, including the proposer, the motion was duly passed.
That, you might be tempted to say is a good thing. After all, isn’t it more important to act on climate change than worry about the wording of the call to do so?
Up to a point, however in politics language is hugely important and can often be a barrier to turning good intentions into constructive actions.
Anyone who has ever been involved with a public consultation knows that the gulf between those running it ‘hearing’ evidence from the public and listening to what they say is huge. Particularly if what the public has to say is likely to make things awkward for major corporations with campaign donations to invest.
Addressing climate concerns, rather than coming up with a plan of action allows enough wriggle room to see that nothing beyond publishing a report few people will bother to read gets done.
It is one of the quaint traditions of local government that each meeting of the full council begins with prayers. Last week the cleric leading them called on councillors to act with responsibility on climate change because we hold this world in trust for future generations.
Even allowing for hyperbole if half of what scientists say about the speed and severity of climate change is true; then the time for such self-serving foolishness is long past.
In these doubting days I’m not sure how many people in the chamber last Thursday believe in a higher power. I for one though would say amen to that.
Friday, 28 June 2019
We need a prime minister committed to tackling inequality; the current race suggests that isn't what we're going to get.
The number of people who are in work but still living in relative poverty has risen according to a report published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).
The report, written for the ITS by research economist Xiaowei Xu, found that between the mid-nineties and 2017 the percentage of households living in-work poverty rose from 13% to 18%.
The report's author describes the rise in working households living in poverty as being the result of 'complex trends', these include high housing costs and rising incomes for pensioners pushing up the line for relative poverty.
The report found that individuals are still, broadly better off in work and that material poverty, being unable to afford basic expenses had declined over the period covered.
These limited gains are overshadowed by increased incomes inequality pushing 600,000 more people into poverty and high private rents and changes to the benefits system since 2010 putting pressure on low income households.
Senior research economist for the IFS Tom Waters said that although the report suggests overall levels of material deprivation have fallen 'severe poverty is a clear policy concern, but it is hard to measure '.
He added that the report, which looked at levels of severe poverty does not 'tell us what has happened to the frequency of destitution, such as rough sleeping'.
Responding to the publication of the IFS report Campbell Robb, chief executive of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation told the BBC 'our economy should work for everyone, but the rise in working poverty across the UK shows that success in increasing employment isn't always a reliable route to a better living standard'.
He added, 'our next prime minister should bring forward an ambitious plan to re-balance our economy by investing in places where low employment and widespread low pay trap people in poverty'.
Quite so, but do you think that is what we are going to get? If you do, then possess an innocence usually associated with sainthood.
One week into the business end of things and the contest between Jeremy Hunt and Boris Johnson to be leader of the Conservative Party and by default the next prime minister looks painfully insular.
Neither candidate has said anything of note about the inequality that overshadows not just the 'working poor', it is increasingly a nightmare that haunts people who used to think of themselves as middle class too. Instead we have had predictable promises of tax cuts for the rich and a lot of faux macho chest beating over who is or isn't brave enough to take part in one TV debate or another.
Their silence on this issue is firmly located in willful ignorance of the fears keeping so many people awake at nights in the country they aspire to lead.
They do not know and will never understand the jeopardy constraining the lives of so many people living in what members of the political class patronizingly call 'alarm clock Britain.
Whichever one loses, most likely Hunt, will stroll into a plum job in government, it's always wise to keep your friends close and your rivals even closer. If they don't fancy that they could snap up a few non-executive directorships in the City or maybe write a book. The latter will, of course be published by an old school friend and given glowing reviews by the sort of people they meet at dinner parties.
At no stage will they lie awake wondering how they're going to pay the rent or find themselves queuing up at the local food bank.
Both Jeremy Hunt and Boris Johnson live in a gilded bubble immune from the stresses of daily life. Its thick fabric of entitlement muffles the growing growl of discontent into a distant and easy to ignore drone.
When power becomes a toy to be passed from one member of a disconnected elite to another a county has serious problems. The UK reached that point in 2016, the Brexit vote and all the upheaval that has followed is the building up of a thunderhead of resentment against the political elite.
The resolution of the egg and spoon race to Downing Street, which to the surprise of nobody will see a white man who went to public school take the reins of power, could be the moment when it finally bursts.
The report, written for the ITS by research economist Xiaowei Xu, found that between the mid-nineties and 2017 the percentage of households living in-work poverty rose from 13% to 18%.
The report's author describes the rise in working households living in poverty as being the result of 'complex trends', these include high housing costs and rising incomes for pensioners pushing up the line for relative poverty.
The report found that individuals are still, broadly better off in work and that material poverty, being unable to afford basic expenses had declined over the period covered.
These limited gains are overshadowed by increased incomes inequality pushing 600,000 more people into poverty and high private rents and changes to the benefits system since 2010 putting pressure on low income households.
Senior research economist for the IFS Tom Waters said that although the report suggests overall levels of material deprivation have fallen 'severe poverty is a clear policy concern, but it is hard to measure '.
He added that the report, which looked at levels of severe poverty does not 'tell us what has happened to the frequency of destitution, such as rough sleeping'.
Responding to the publication of the IFS report Campbell Robb, chief executive of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation told the BBC 'our economy should work for everyone, but the rise in working poverty across the UK shows that success in increasing employment isn't always a reliable route to a better living standard'.
He added, 'our next prime minister should bring forward an ambitious plan to re-balance our economy by investing in places where low employment and widespread low pay trap people in poverty'.
Quite so, but do you think that is what we are going to get? If you do, then possess an innocence usually associated with sainthood.
One week into the business end of things and the contest between Jeremy Hunt and Boris Johnson to be leader of the Conservative Party and by default the next prime minister looks painfully insular.
Neither candidate has said anything of note about the inequality that overshadows not just the 'working poor', it is increasingly a nightmare that haunts people who used to think of themselves as middle class too. Instead we have had predictable promises of tax cuts for the rich and a lot of faux macho chest beating over who is or isn't brave enough to take part in one TV debate or another.
Their silence on this issue is firmly located in willful ignorance of the fears keeping so many people awake at nights in the country they aspire to lead.
They do not know and will never understand the jeopardy constraining the lives of so many people living in what members of the political class patronizingly call 'alarm clock Britain.
Whichever one loses, most likely Hunt, will stroll into a plum job in government, it's always wise to keep your friends close and your rivals even closer. If they don't fancy that they could snap up a few non-executive directorships in the City or maybe write a book. The latter will, of course be published by an old school friend and given glowing reviews by the sort of people they meet at dinner parties.
At no stage will they lie awake wondering how they're going to pay the rent or find themselves queuing up at the local food bank.
Both Jeremy Hunt and Boris Johnson live in a gilded bubble immune from the stresses of daily life. Its thick fabric of entitlement muffles the growing growl of discontent into a distant and easy to ignore drone.
When power becomes a toy to be passed from one member of a disconnected elite to another a county has serious problems. The UK reached that point in 2016, the Brexit vote and all the upheaval that has followed is the building up of a thunderhead of resentment against the political elite.
The resolution of the egg and spoon race to Downing Street, which to the surprise of nobody will see a white man who went to public school take the reins of power, could be the moment when it finally bursts.
Friday, 21 June 2019
The bill to improve children's services is unjust and counterproductive.
The Department for Education (DfE) have appointed Elenor Brazil to turn around the city's troubled children's services department after a damming Ofstead report.
MS Brazil has a reputation for turning around failing council departments, including those in Haringey and Birmingham. She will be employed by the city council until 9th September, the bill for her services will be £34,400.
This works out at some £800 per day, nice work if you can get it about which James O'Connell of the Taxpayers Alliance, quoted in the Sentinel, said 'taxpayers will hold that by paying such a large amount in fees for outside expertise, they will get good value for money'.
Mr. O'Connell is almost certainly unaware of the unhappy history this city has of paying huge sums for advice from experts. During the Labour years the Civic center seemed to have a revolving door delivering a succession of advisors and consultants and then sending them on again with their pockets jingling.
This time the appointment has been commanded by the DfE and seems particularly unjust. However good her record it hardly seems like value for money to pay MS Brazil, or any other official £800 a day for their services.
Imposing such a cost on a city like Stoke-on-Trent where a decade of austerity has seen services cut to the bone. The £34,000+ involved would be better spent on improving services.
Get again central government has proved to be dangerously out of touch with the concerns of cash strapped councils. They demand the purse strings to be tightened like those of a violin, whilst at the same time force councils to spend like sailors on shore leave on outside advice.
Hopefully some good will be done, but the cost will inevitably lead to other services suffering as a result.
Hail to the Tweet.
US President Donald Trump has taken to Twitter to criticize London Mayor Sadiq Khan over the capital's problems with knife crime, describing him as a 'disaster '.
There is no question that London, and many other UK cities have a problem with knife crime that needs to be addressed. It pales into insignificance though compared to the epidemic of gun violence that has swept America from sea to shining sea leaving a trail of misery in its wake.
Perhaps Mr. Trump should be using his power to take on the gun lobby, don't hold your breath waiting for him to do it through. Upsetting a group that wields such political clout in the name of a higher good would require the sort of courage befitting a leader of the free world.
Sending snarky tweets though, any tiny handed man-child can do that. The faces carved on Mount Rushmore must be turning away in shame.
Noise but no signal.
Like Boris Johnson I missed the first debate between the candidates for the Tory leadership. Unfortunately, I caught the radio broadcast of the second and found it a disappointment.
There was little to be learnt that we increasingly bemused observers of this fight between five bald men over a comb didn't already know.
Michael Gove and Jeremy Hunt are both oilier than a can of sardines; Boris Johnson and Sajid Javid tend to bluster when in a tight spot. Pretty much all the candidates are determined to leave the EU on 31st October, deal or no deal. Although they're vague on how they're going to force Brexit through against the implacable opposition of parliament.
To his credit Rory Stewart tried to be a voice of common sense, but mostly got drowned out. He's likely to be out of the race after the second vote anyway.
As a guide to what any of the challengers might make of being Prime Minister at one of the most difficult times in our recent history, your guess is as good as mine.
And Another Thing:
Since writing most of this article the field in the Tory leadership race has been thinned down to a face-off between Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt. Two white upper-class men who both went to public schools and were chums at Oxbridge. How can they represent the diverse and divided Britain they are vying to lead? They can’t because they can’t even begin to understand it.
There is no question that Tory MP Mark Field was wrong to manhandle a climate change protestor out of the Mansion House banquet for having the temerity to interrupt Chancellor Phillip Hammond’s turgid speech this week.
He claims to have been reacting to the possibility she might have been armed, his facial expression caught by the news cameras says something different. This wasn’t someone reacting to a threat to life and limb; it was an alpha male taking the opportunity to assert his dominance over someone he deemed to be weaker.
Field has since been suspended from his job as a minister in the Foreign Office and has reported himself to the Cabinet Office for investigation. Both acts have been carried out under the unspoken understanding that he will get a slap on the wrist, then it will be back to business as usual.
That is nowhere near good enough; he should be hauled up before the courts.
MS Brazil has a reputation for turning around failing council departments, including those in Haringey and Birmingham. She will be employed by the city council until 9th September, the bill for her services will be £34,400.
This works out at some £800 per day, nice work if you can get it about which James O'Connell of the Taxpayers Alliance, quoted in the Sentinel, said 'taxpayers will hold that by paying such a large amount in fees for outside expertise, they will get good value for money'.
Mr. O'Connell is almost certainly unaware of the unhappy history this city has of paying huge sums for advice from experts. During the Labour years the Civic center seemed to have a revolving door delivering a succession of advisors and consultants and then sending them on again with their pockets jingling.
This time the appointment has been commanded by the DfE and seems particularly unjust. However good her record it hardly seems like value for money to pay MS Brazil, or any other official £800 a day for their services.
Imposing such a cost on a city like Stoke-on-Trent where a decade of austerity has seen services cut to the bone. The £34,000+ involved would be better spent on improving services.
Get again central government has proved to be dangerously out of touch with the concerns of cash strapped councils. They demand the purse strings to be tightened like those of a violin, whilst at the same time force councils to spend like sailors on shore leave on outside advice.
Hopefully some good will be done, but the cost will inevitably lead to other services suffering as a result.
Hail to the Tweet.
US President Donald Trump has taken to Twitter to criticize London Mayor Sadiq Khan over the capital's problems with knife crime, describing him as a 'disaster '.
There is no question that London, and many other UK cities have a problem with knife crime that needs to be addressed. It pales into insignificance though compared to the epidemic of gun violence that has swept America from sea to shining sea leaving a trail of misery in its wake.
Perhaps Mr. Trump should be using his power to take on the gun lobby, don't hold your breath waiting for him to do it through. Upsetting a group that wields such political clout in the name of a higher good would require the sort of courage befitting a leader of the free world.
Sending snarky tweets though, any tiny handed man-child can do that. The faces carved on Mount Rushmore must be turning away in shame.
Noise but no signal.
Like Boris Johnson I missed the first debate between the candidates for the Tory leadership. Unfortunately, I caught the radio broadcast of the second and found it a disappointment.
There was little to be learnt that we increasingly bemused observers of this fight between five bald men over a comb didn't already know.
Michael Gove and Jeremy Hunt are both oilier than a can of sardines; Boris Johnson and Sajid Javid tend to bluster when in a tight spot. Pretty much all the candidates are determined to leave the EU on 31st October, deal or no deal. Although they're vague on how they're going to force Brexit through against the implacable opposition of parliament.
To his credit Rory Stewart tried to be a voice of common sense, but mostly got drowned out. He's likely to be out of the race after the second vote anyway.
As a guide to what any of the challengers might make of being Prime Minister at one of the most difficult times in our recent history, your guess is as good as mine.
And Another Thing:
Since writing most of this article the field in the Tory leadership race has been thinned down to a face-off between Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt. Two white upper-class men who both went to public schools and were chums at Oxbridge. How can they represent the diverse and divided Britain they are vying to lead? They can’t because they can’t even begin to understand it.
There is no question that Tory MP Mark Field was wrong to manhandle a climate change protestor out of the Mansion House banquet for having the temerity to interrupt Chancellor Phillip Hammond’s turgid speech this week.
He claims to have been reacting to the possibility she might have been armed, his facial expression caught by the news cameras says something different. This wasn’t someone reacting to a threat to life and limb; it was an alpha male taking the opportunity to assert his dominance over someone he deemed to be weaker.
Field has since been suspended from his job as a minister in the Foreign Office and has reported himself to the Cabinet Office for investigation. Both acts have been carried out under the unspoken understanding that he will get a slap on the wrist, then it will be back to business as usual.
That is nowhere near good enough; he should be hauled up before the courts.
Friday, 31 May 2019
Baddeley appointment plays to all the stereotypes a city like Stoke needs to avoid.
Choosing a mayor and deputy is usually one of the less controversial parts of the local government calendar.
A little harmless whimsy involving knee breeches, a tricorn hat and some serious civic bling. Not this year though, not here in Stoke-on-Trent.
The city council have appointed former BNP Councilor Melanie Baddeley as Deputy Lord Mayor, if tradition is followed, she will go on to be the city's first citizen in 2020/21.
Councilor Baddeley represented the BNP on the city council between 2008 and 2011, she also stood as the far-right party's candidate in Stoke North at the 2010 general election.
Since then Councilor Baddeley has, she says, renounced her former views and after joining the City Independents group returned to elected office in 2015 in the Abbey Hulton and Townsend ward.
Councilor Baddeley was after defeating Labour nominee for the Deputy Mayor post Candi Chetwynd by 22 votes to 16.
She was nominated by City Independents leader Ann James, who praised her community work and later told the Sentinel that she was 'confident that she will do a fantastic job in representing the city'.
Stoke-on-Trent is a city with a serious and largely undeserved image problem, appointing an, admittedly repentant seeming, former member of the BNP as its first citizen a year from now will not help matters.
A media that seldom strays far from London and the Home Counties uses Stoke as shorthand for urban decay. To them our city, which most of their number haven't visited is a decrepit theme park where their favorite folk devils roam free.
The way they have gone about doing so, by becoming property developers building apartments for 'young professionals', may be open to question; but the council have made a determined effort to change the city's image.
That is what makes the decision to endorse the appointment of Councilor Baddeley so frustrating.
The motives behind it are both clear and disappointing, the ruling Tory/City Independents coalition rejected the more suitable Labour candidate to score points against the opposition.
A neat little move when the leadership are in a tight place over Solarplicity failing to deliver. New leader Abi Brown is fast finding out that the Tories second term in coalition might be a lot tougher than the first.
Short term gain has been allowed to trump long term cost; an outcome that always has unpleasant consequences. In this instance these are likely to be both social and economic ones.
A key feature of the council's regeneration strategy since 2015 has been attracting investment to the city based on building 'executive' housing from to attract potential investors. These are exactly the people likely to be put off by the thought of living in a town that has made someone even loosely associated with the BNP one of its most senior political figures.
This could be damaging, property developing is a gamble at the best of times. In a crowded field where a lot of post-industrial towns are chasing after the same cohort of 'professionals ' it takes only a single card to turn a playable hand into a heap of dust.
Socially appointing Councilor Baddeley as Deputy Mayor is even more problematic, Stoke has an unfortunate recent history of far-right involvement in its politics. A little over a decade ago there were six BNP members sitting on the council, in 2016 the city voted overwhelmingly for Brexit.
Neither of these outcomes are surprising in a city that struggles with high levels of deprivation. People with nothing to lose are the target audience for extremists, not least because they are open to adopting any scapegoat offered to them.
Easy answers offered up by political groups with extremist agendas create more problems than they solve. Embracing them traps cities like Stoke in a miserable stasis of managed decline. A vicious circle the ruling City Independents, Labour and anyone with the city's best interests at heart is trying to break.
Councilor Baddeley claims to have changed her political views, if we accept that as being the case, then she must also accept the reality of her situation. By accepting the Deputy Mayor's chain, she will be doing serious damage to the people she pledged her oath to serve.
If she does then it will also be clear that she must think seriously about her position; and having done so resign.
A little harmless whimsy involving knee breeches, a tricorn hat and some serious civic bling. Not this year though, not here in Stoke-on-Trent.
The city council have appointed former BNP Councilor Melanie Baddeley as Deputy Lord Mayor, if tradition is followed, she will go on to be the city's first citizen in 2020/21.
Councilor Baddeley represented the BNP on the city council between 2008 and 2011, she also stood as the far-right party's candidate in Stoke North at the 2010 general election.
Since then Councilor Baddeley has, she says, renounced her former views and after joining the City Independents group returned to elected office in 2015 in the Abbey Hulton and Townsend ward.
Councilor Baddeley was after defeating Labour nominee for the Deputy Mayor post Candi Chetwynd by 22 votes to 16.
She was nominated by City Independents leader Ann James, who praised her community work and later told the Sentinel that she was 'confident that she will do a fantastic job in representing the city'.
Stoke-on-Trent is a city with a serious and largely undeserved image problem, appointing an, admittedly repentant seeming, former member of the BNP as its first citizen a year from now will not help matters.
A media that seldom strays far from London and the Home Counties uses Stoke as shorthand for urban decay. To them our city, which most of their number haven't visited is a decrepit theme park where their favorite folk devils roam free.
The way they have gone about doing so, by becoming property developers building apartments for 'young professionals', may be open to question; but the council have made a determined effort to change the city's image.
That is what makes the decision to endorse the appointment of Councilor Baddeley so frustrating.
The motives behind it are both clear and disappointing, the ruling Tory/City Independents coalition rejected the more suitable Labour candidate to score points against the opposition.
A neat little move when the leadership are in a tight place over Solarplicity failing to deliver. New leader Abi Brown is fast finding out that the Tories second term in coalition might be a lot tougher than the first.
Short term gain has been allowed to trump long term cost; an outcome that always has unpleasant consequences. In this instance these are likely to be both social and economic ones.
A key feature of the council's regeneration strategy since 2015 has been attracting investment to the city based on building 'executive' housing from to attract potential investors. These are exactly the people likely to be put off by the thought of living in a town that has made someone even loosely associated with the BNP one of its most senior political figures.
This could be damaging, property developing is a gamble at the best of times. In a crowded field where a lot of post-industrial towns are chasing after the same cohort of 'professionals ' it takes only a single card to turn a playable hand into a heap of dust.
Socially appointing Councilor Baddeley as Deputy Mayor is even more problematic, Stoke has an unfortunate recent history of far-right involvement in its politics. A little over a decade ago there were six BNP members sitting on the council, in 2016 the city voted overwhelmingly for Brexit.
Neither of these outcomes are surprising in a city that struggles with high levels of deprivation. People with nothing to lose are the target audience for extremists, not least because they are open to adopting any scapegoat offered to them.
Easy answers offered up by political groups with extremist agendas create more problems than they solve. Embracing them traps cities like Stoke in a miserable stasis of managed decline. A vicious circle the ruling City Independents, Labour and anyone with the city's best interests at heart is trying to break.
Councilor Baddeley claims to have changed her political views, if we accept that as being the case, then she must also accept the reality of her situation. By accepting the Deputy Mayor's chain, she will be doing serious damage to the people she pledged her oath to serve.
If she does then it will also be clear that she must think seriously about her position; and having done so resign.
Thursday, 9 May 2019
Dangerous pavements are trapping older people in loneliness.
A YouGov survey carried out for campaign group Living Streets has found that older people find walking beneficial for their wellbeing. Poorly maintained and dangerous pavements are discouraging them from getting out, leaving many vulnerable to loneliness.
North Staffs Green Party have given their support to a campaign calling for local authorities to take action on this issue.
The reasons the older people questioned said they valued walking included as a way of exercising (78%), an opportunity to get out of the house (67%) and being out in the fresh air (65%).
The government’s loneliness strategy published late last year recognises that it is important for people to stay active as they get older and walking is an excellent way of doing so.
The survey found that the older people questioned said they would walk more if pavements were better maintained (48%), with a significant number (31%) saying they were put off by cracked and uneven pavements.
Respondents also expressed concern about air quality, with 11% saying they were put off by the risks posed by pollution.
A recent survey for Age UK found that 1.4million older people report feeling lonely, this is set to rise to 2million within seven years.
Living Streets chief executive Joe Irvin said: ‘if we viewed our streets through the lens of an older person, a child or a wheelchair user we would soon begin to see how unfit for purpose a lot of them are’.
On average councils spend 12% of their local transport infrastructure on walking and cycling. As part of their #nine90 campaign Living Streets wan to see that raised to 15% and to highlight the need to design street layouts with 9 to 90year olds in mind.
Joe Irvin said: ‘having well maintained pavements will help older adults walk more, we want local authorities to be reassessing their streets to see how they could be made better for everyone’.
North Staffs Green Party have announced their support for #nine90, Campaign Coordinator Adam Colclough said ‘during the recent local elections the people we met on the doorstep told us how concerned they were about the state of pavements around the city’
He added ‘we are supporting the Living Streets campaign because we need to tackle the health problems caused by social isolation and to address the long-standing problems our city has had with poor air quality and public health’.
Wednesday, 8 May 2019
Inequality is becoming entrenched as food bank use rises again.
At the end of April, the Trussell Trust, the charity running most of the UK’s food banks, published its end of year figures. They do not make for happy reading.
Over the year from April 2018 to March 2019 the trust has given out 1.6 million three-day food parcels, half a million of these went to children.
Amongst the reasons for having been referred to their local food bank given by users 33.11% said their income, even from full time work, was not enough to cover basic living costs.
Users also cited delays in payment of benefits (20.34%) and changes to the benefit system (17.36%) as reasons why they were struggling to make ends meet.
Chief Executive of the Trussell Trust Emma Revie said ‘what we are seeing year upon year is more and more people struggling to eat because they simply cannot afford food. This is not right.’
The biggest driver of the rise in food bank use has been the rollout of Universal Credit, with many claimants having to wait five weeks or longer for their first payment, leaving them without money for basic living costs.
As currently constructed Universal Credit was, Emma Revie said, ‘sweeping’ people into the poverty from which it was supposed to be protecting them.
These latest figures about the rise in food bank use were released just before the publication of the Social Mobility Commission’s sixth State of the Nation report.
Based on analysis of data produced by the Office for National Statistics this shows that inequality is becoming entrenched in the UK.
Among the report’s findings are that people from a better off background are 80% more likely to end up in professional jobs than those from a working class one. Social mobility has stagnated since 2014 something that has largely gone ignored as political leaders have become increasingly distracted by the protracted disagreements around leaving the EU.
Dame Martina Milburn, chair of the Social Mobility Commission, said ‘at a time when our country needs to be highly productive, we must find a way to maximise the talent of all out citizens, especially those that start the furthest behind’.
Just how far behind inequality forces some families to start behind is shown by the report’s finding that those most in need of the thirty hours free childcare offered by the government are the least likely to take advantage, mostly because they don’t know it is available.
Although there are more disadvantaged 16 to 18-year-olds in further education funding for colleges has fallen by 12% since 2012. Only 16% of students who had free school meals are achieving two A Levels by the age of 19, compared to 39% from other social groups.
The report recommends that the government increases spending on further education for 16 to 19-year-olds and pays a premium to support the most disadvantaged.
Almost half (49%) of adults from disadvantaged backgrounds have received no training since leaving school and are likely to be paid less than the living wage, the report found. This is the group that will be hit hardest by the increasing automation of many routine jobs.
Despite this funding for adult education has been cut by 62% over the past decade and many further education colleges are being forced to make yet more cuts to staff and courses.
The report calls for government departments to lead the way by becoming Living Wage employers. Director of the Living Wage Foundation Katherine Chapman said there was ‘cross party and public support for the real living wage, but there are still staff working in vital public sector jobs who are struggling to get by.’
She added that it was time ‘for our major public institutions to lead by example’.
Tackling endemic inequality isn’t just about making the UK more productive, important though that is. It is about bringing back basic fairness to our society and giving individuals the dignity that comes from having agency over their own lives.
As Emma Revie put it, nothing her charity does ‘can replace the dignity of having financial security’, which is why the Trussell Trust are using their #5WeeksTooLong campaign to call on the government to ‘ensure benefit payments reflect the true cost of living, to help ensure we are all anchored from poverty.’
Over the year from April 2018 to March 2019 the trust has given out 1.6 million three-day food parcels, half a million of these went to children.
Amongst the reasons for having been referred to their local food bank given by users 33.11% said their income, even from full time work, was not enough to cover basic living costs.
Users also cited delays in payment of benefits (20.34%) and changes to the benefit system (17.36%) as reasons why they were struggling to make ends meet.
Chief Executive of the Trussell Trust Emma Revie said ‘what we are seeing year upon year is more and more people struggling to eat because they simply cannot afford food. This is not right.’
The biggest driver of the rise in food bank use has been the rollout of Universal Credit, with many claimants having to wait five weeks or longer for their first payment, leaving them without money for basic living costs.
As currently constructed Universal Credit was, Emma Revie said, ‘sweeping’ people into the poverty from which it was supposed to be protecting them.
These latest figures about the rise in food bank use were released just before the publication of the Social Mobility Commission’s sixth State of the Nation report.
Based on analysis of data produced by the Office for National Statistics this shows that inequality is becoming entrenched in the UK.
Among the report’s findings are that people from a better off background are 80% more likely to end up in professional jobs than those from a working class one. Social mobility has stagnated since 2014 something that has largely gone ignored as political leaders have become increasingly distracted by the protracted disagreements around leaving the EU.
Dame Martina Milburn, chair of the Social Mobility Commission, said ‘at a time when our country needs to be highly productive, we must find a way to maximise the talent of all out citizens, especially those that start the furthest behind’.
Just how far behind inequality forces some families to start behind is shown by the report’s finding that those most in need of the thirty hours free childcare offered by the government are the least likely to take advantage, mostly because they don’t know it is available.
Although there are more disadvantaged 16 to 18-year-olds in further education funding for colleges has fallen by 12% since 2012. Only 16% of students who had free school meals are achieving two A Levels by the age of 19, compared to 39% from other social groups.
The report recommends that the government increases spending on further education for 16 to 19-year-olds and pays a premium to support the most disadvantaged.
Almost half (49%) of adults from disadvantaged backgrounds have received no training since leaving school and are likely to be paid less than the living wage, the report found. This is the group that will be hit hardest by the increasing automation of many routine jobs.
Despite this funding for adult education has been cut by 62% over the past decade and many further education colleges are being forced to make yet more cuts to staff and courses.
The report calls for government departments to lead the way by becoming Living Wage employers. Director of the Living Wage Foundation Katherine Chapman said there was ‘cross party and public support for the real living wage, but there are still staff working in vital public sector jobs who are struggling to get by.’
She added that it was time ‘for our major public institutions to lead by example’.
Tackling endemic inequality isn’t just about making the UK more productive, important though that is. It is about bringing back basic fairness to our society and giving individuals the dignity that comes from having agency over their own lives.
As Emma Revie put it, nothing her charity does ‘can replace the dignity of having financial security’, which is why the Trussell Trust are using their #5WeeksTooLong campaign to call on the government to ‘ensure benefit payments reflect the true cost of living, to help ensure we are all anchored from poverty.’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)