http://kentwoodconservatives.yourcllr.com/

This blog will continue as my own personal blog.

A few weeks ago, at the last full Council meeting, my colleague Cllr Tim Harris proposed the following motion:

“This Council believes that the residents of Reading would significantly benefit from a support centre in the town centre open at accessible times to provide specialist services such as health, relationship, employment and legal advice and to offer counselling and other services to the LGBT community.

This Council undertakes to provide genuine assistance with accommodation and £10k in start up costs for ‘Support U’ to establish such a centre which once instigated should be self-financing and run by local LGBT community members.”

The motion, which followed a petition along the same lines, passed with all-party support. I was delighted to be able to speak in support of this motion. Local authorities support a wide range of community groups and services – something which can be even more important in these difficult financial times. When we formed the administration in Reading last year (in coalition with the Lib Dems) one of the things we wanted to do was to open up the voluntary grants system to make it possible for new or different providers to obtain funding. Unfortunately, when we tried to do that vested interests threatened the Council with judicial review.

Support U is a charitable organisation which has been set up by Lorna McArdle and Andrew Stonehill-Brooks, who also run Reading Pride. The aim of the organisation is to help bring together a variety of services for the LGBT community in Reading and provide a hub for the community. Find out more here:

http://www.supportu.org.uk/

Lorna and Andrew have done a fantastic job getting this off the ground and getting so many signatures on the petition and they have great plans for Support U – but they needed a helping hand from the Council to get going.

This is a fantastic idea which should really help to plug some of the gaps in provision of services to LGBT people in Reading and make it easier for people to access those services – particularly people who for whatever reason find it hard to discuss their sexuality with service providers or are having difficulty coming to terms with it themselves.

Unfortunately, but perhaps not surprisingly, many commentators on the local newspaper website had a different view:

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2101761_10000_grant_for_readings_lgbt_community

Clearly some people are incapable of viewing the world from the viewpoint of someone who is different from them, or appreciating that different people can have such very different experiences of life. Comments such as these simply remind me why the LGBT community does need dedicated support and resources – because clearly there’s still plenty of ignorance (at best) and bigotry (at worst) that we still encounter on a daily basis. It’s no wonder that some people might be reluctant to be honest about who they are, when doing so might attract such negative and often hurtful responses.

It’s a sad fact that many LGBT people struggle to reconcile their religious beliefs with their sexuality, or may fear (or have actually experienced) rejection from their family and friends, they may often be more likely to experience bullying than their straight counterparts. Tragically, many fail to resolve these issues and suicide or suicide attempts are all too frequent. As I said in my speech to Council, few of us have not been touched by the suicide or suicide attempt of a friend or loved one.

So this isn’t a plea for special favours – it is simply acknowledging that sometimes some groups of people need a bit of extra help, or they need services provided in a slightly different or more understanding way. Support U aims to do just that and I happen to think that it is a very worthwhile cause. I hope it will be a great success and that it becomes a service that other towns will look to emulate.

Grafiti in Tunis city centre

Back in April I visited Tunisia. It wasn’t long after the Revolution, which happened in January and kick-started the ‘Arab Spring’. The atmosphere was one of nervous anticipation.

The people I spoke to seemed glad to have got rid of Ben Ali, but they were apprehensive about the future. Many of those I spoke to, being engaged in the tourist industry, had already suffered a complete drop-off in their business due to the political situation. With the exception of a few French, there appeared to be hardly any other tourists in the country. Whilst this was good from a selfish point of view (getting whole Roman cities with just our small party there) it was becoming desperate for tour guides, drivers, hoteliers and the like. I know from emailing my guide that the situation has not improved and the tourists have continued to stay away.

When I asked about the political situation people were circumspect; it was clear that they simply did not know what to expect next. A dictator had gone and they did know who would step into the void. They hoped for the best, but past experience may have taught them to be wary.

Shortly after I came home, I saw a news report saying that not only would Tunisia be holding democratic elections, but that women would have 50% of the positions. Now I’m not a fan of quotas, but nevertheless the intention seemed promising.

A few days ago Tunisia, the country that started the Arab revolutions of 2011, held an election. I do hope that the people get the good government they deserve and that the friends I made there enjoy peace and an upturn in their tourist business. I worry, though, that this is a process that is only just beginning and we do not know yet whether free and open democracy, as we know it, has truly taken root.

The US version is classy, without a doubt, and has a distinctly European feel. It is, however, a virtual word-for-word, scene-for-scene copy (based on last week’s double episode). Apparently, though, the ending is different.

Many of the characters look and sound like their Danish original and have similar names (Lund / Linden). But, to me, some of the American actors just didn’t pull it off. In the Danish version the character of the Mayor was both avuncular and a wily political operator but his US equivalent was bland. This was even more pronounced in the difference between sexy and occasionally sinister Troels Hartmann – his US equivalent is too conventional, too smooth and basically just an identikit American politician.

The US version is stylishly shot and either the music was the same or very similar. The trademark dramatic crescendo at the end of an episode was copied across.

Overall, although it was well put together I just struggled to see the point. When something is as perfect as the Danish original was, why try to copy it? Is it that the networks think that Americans can’t cope with subtitles? If so, how patronising is that? I watch a lot of subtitled films or dramas and although at first it can take a few minutes to get used to it, after that I find I get so caught up in the story that I’m barely aware that I’m actually reading subtitles, so natural does it seem.

Some people rave about American dramas on TV. Admittedly they’re slick but, with the exception of idealistic and witty West Wing and brilliantly wacky Boston Legal, I just don’t get the fixation with American TV. Swedish Wallander, Danish The Killing and French Spiral get my vote any day.

Filed under: General ]]> http://emmawarman.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/the-killing/feed/ 0 emmawarman http://emmawarman.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/oxbridge-entrance/ http://emmawarman.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/oxbridge-entrance/#comments Sat, 09 Jul 2011 16:19:59 +0000 Emma Warman https://emmawarman.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/oxbridge-entrance/ Continue reading →]]> Yesterday there were stories the press about the fact that elite schools dominate when it comes to admission to Oxford and Cambridge universities. Five schools sent more pupils to Oxbridge than 2,000 other schools put together.

It’s not that these schools get markedly better A level results – the research apparently shows that the results were similar. So why the difference?

Well, according to the articles I saw, some of it was down to poor advice and choice of A level subjects. The top schools simply were more tuned into what Oxbridge admissions tutors were looking for and advised their pupils accordingly. Whenever I’ve seen articles on this subject in the past, there’s always been something of an assumption that there’s prejudice involved – specifically that there is prejudice against comprehensive school pupils.

I went to a state comprehensive school – I’d have loved to have gone to a grammar school but there were none. All closed down. I took the Oxford entrance exam in 1993 and had an interview but did not get a place (I ended up here in Reading instead).

In my experience, poor advice is definitely a factor. I took 3 A levels, one of which was Politics and Government (the others were English Lit and History). This was my first mistake; although it was a subject I was interested in and which I enjoyed at A level, I don’t think it was as well regarded as some other subjects. In retrospect I wish I’d continued with French or tried out Economics as well. I wish I’d had a teacher who could have advised me how my choice would be viewed. Neither of my parents had a degree and although my aunt had taken a degree at Cardiff, university was largely uncharted territory for my family. When I applied for university I hadn’t even really worked out the terminology (undergraduate, postgraduate, bachelors etc) let alone have any understanding about how my choice of A level subject might have a profound effect on my future. Looking back, I wish there’d been someone who could have advised me.

My school did send people to Oxbridge. Sometimes as many as two or three a year. But generally they were people who were either exceptionally and obviously gifted, or they were people who had parents or other family connections who had an academic background and knew the ropes. Because if you got to Oxford or Cambridge you basically had to do it on your own.

The prevailing attitude of the school was that Oxbridge was for the exceptional. I read all the prospectuses and decided that for my degree subject (History) Oxford had the most interesting syllabus. So I decided to apply. Why not? If you don’t try, then you don’t get anywhere. My friend also wanted to apply.

I remember clearly the two of us being called in to see the Head of Sixth Form. Would we like to reconsider, she asked. The thing was, if the school sent candidates who weren’t good enough, the school got a snotty letter from the university (so she said – I’m still not sure I believe this). She didn’t want that. If we wanted to go to Oxford we were just being academic snobs (yes, she said that).

Anyone who knows me will know that telling me not to do something is not a clever thing to do! I bridled at the suggestion that I should moderate my ambitions solely to spare the Head of Sixth Form the minor unpleasantness of a snotty letter from Oxford. Whereas I’d previously been unsure whether or not to apply now I was definitely going to do it. And I did.

My friend, under pressure from the Head of Sixth Form, decided not to apply and has regretted it ever since.

I took the Oxford entrance exam and had an interview. I was useless at the interview because I had no idea what to expect and no interview experience, except for a few (unhelpful) mock interviews with the Headmaster and (more helpful) with my English teacher* (based on the experience of his own interview 20-odd years before). Maybe I wouldn’t have got in anyway, but I have no doubt that if I’d gone to a different school I’d have been better prepared for the interview. I’d have done the extra reading that apparently was expected (how was I to have known that?). I wouldn’t have been scared to challenge, to stick to my guns.I know now, from speaking to people who went to schools that routinely put forward significant percentages of their sixth form for Oxbridge, that those schools prepare their pupils meticulously. They identify potential candidates and mentor them, prepare them for the entrance exam and interview, just as they prepare them for the A level exams. It’s no wonder they’re so successful. Why don’t other schools do this?

I fear that many state comprehensive schools have the same attitude as mine: that Oxbridge is for academic snobs, that the risk of failure outweighs the possibility of success. That if pupils must apply then they are pretty much on their own.

My school didn’t just lack ambition for its pupils – it actively discouraged it; it sneered at us and it failed to take steps to find out what it could do to prepare us.

The shocking lack of support and ambition of many state schools (like mine) is one of the reasons why a small number of elite schools manage to clean up on Oxbridge places. It’s about time that secondary school governors and parents had a close look at what support their schools give to ambitious and able pupils.

*as it happens this English teacher was absolutely the best thing about the school and was the most inspirational teacher I have ever met. In my interview prep he did his best, but his sole qualification was having had an Oxford interview himself.

In Kentwood, where I am a councillor, my colleague Tom Steele retired after serving the community terrifically for 4 years. A huge thank you to Tom for all the hard work he has done on the Council and also thanks to both him and his wife Patricia for their work in the campaign. I’m very pleased that we have such a good successor to Tom in Cllr James Anderson (right). James has lived in the area all his life and already has a strong record of working for the local community.

Local stalwart Cllr Sandra Vickers (left) was successful in Tilehurst where she has been the candidate on a number of occasions in the past and is well known for her hard work over many years. It was disappointing that the last minute leaflet from defending councillor Chris Harris (Lib Dem) sought to portray Sandra as an opportunist, describing her as an ‘unknown Tory’ when in fact he and his colleagues are aware that Sandra has been working hard in Tilehurst for a long time. However, setting aside this error of judgement, which I think was out of character, I have always found Chris to be a real gentleman and on a personal basis I wish him well in the future.

Although I am delighted to welcome two such excellent new councillors, I am of course disappointed at the result in Park and Church wards. Park, of course, was always going to be difficult as Wazir Hussain had won in 2007 with only 7 votes and the ward had subsequently gone first Labour and then Green. This has been a closely contested 3-way ward and it was no surprise, although still disappointing, that Wazir Hussain was unable to retain his seat. Having worked with Wazir on the Council for the past 3 years I can say he is a genuinely nice man and was a hard working councillor and I think he will be missed by the people of Park ward. There is no doubt that the Green Party have campaigned hard in Park over the last few years and to that extent their victory is deserved, although from what we have seen from Cllr White over the last year they seem to be very much Labour Party stooges with little to offer of genuine substance. I fully expect them to do a deal with Labour in the next few days.

I won’t pretend that the result in Church ward wasn’t a real disappointment. I know that Cllrs Azam Janjua, Tim Harris and Mike Townend have worked hard in that ward since 2007 and our candidate Geoff Poland (replacing Mike Townend who had stepped down) fought an excellent (and clean) campaign. Given the strength of feeling in the ward about the Shinfield Road lights and the efforts made by Cllr Richard Willis, as lead councillor for Transport, to try to remedy the worst of the problems it is surprising that the electorate decided to vote for the party (Labour) that caused the mess in the first place. Nevertheless, I offer my congratulations to Cllr Paul Woodward.

No comment on the results in Reading would be complete without talking about the devastating defeats for the Liberal Democrats. I have already mentioned Tilehurst, but they lost both their central Reading wards of Redlands and Katesgrove by over 500 votes – in both cases the margin of defeat was remarkable. I had expected them to lose Katesgrove, as the sitting councillor Gareth Epps, presumably with his eye on pursuing his parliamentary ambitions, had decided not to stand again. However, I was genuinely shocked to learn that their excellent leader, Kirsten Bayes, had been so soundly defeated in Redlands by a candidate who seems to have run a rather vitriolic and negative campaign. I have utmost respect for Kirsten Bayes, both as a councillor and as a person and her contributions to full Council and in scrutiny or, latterly, Cabinet, were always insightful and thought-provoking. She brought a sound analytical approach which I think will be missed – from what I’ve seen from twitter and on the blogs I doubt that her replacement will do the same but I hope that she proves me wrong.

On a national level it is clear that the Liberal Democrats have suffered a horrible defeat and some talking heads today are suggesting that this is the end for the coalition, that the Liberal Democrats should withdraw from it or that David Cameron should call a General Election in the hope of getting an overall majority. In my view, both courses of action would be foolish, and I don’t think either will happen. The Liberal Democrats have suffered (unfairly in my view) for joining the coalition and working to put this country back on its feet again. I find it perverse that voters would vote for a party and then lose faith in it immediately it enters government. Surely Liberal Democrat voters realised last year that their party was not ever going to do sufficiently well to govern by itself and therefore the only route to government was through coalition with one of the other two parties? If the Liberal Democrats split from the coalition now they would firstly look like very bad losers and I can only see that losing them even more support (if that is possible). They would also look like a party that is really just for a protest vote and is not up for the challenges of making hard choices in government. They would risk prompting a General Election at which they could expect to be virtually wiped out, whereas if they stick with the coalition they can surely expect that their electoral fortunes will have recovered from their current doldrums by the time of the next election, when they will also be able to claim some credit for having helped Britain through the economic crisis. Similarly I don’t think David Cameron should, or will, force a General Election now. The public, including Labour supporters, are clearly not yet sold on Ed Milliband and Labour failed to make the inroads they might have expected, but it is far from certain that the Conservatives could get the overall majority we failed to achieve last year, especially with the system (constituency sizes) still weighted against us. Also it would say little for Cameron’s sticking power or integrity.

Nationally, these elections were far better for the Conservatives than we had expected. Going into the polls, it was commonly accepted that the Conservatives could expect to lose in the region of 1,000 councillors across the country. Instead, we have in fact made net gains both in councillors and in councils.

Finally, we also had the AV vote alongside the local elections. Reading, like almost everywhere else in the country, voted “No”. The result was 61.03% No and 38.97% Yes. It is a measure of how comprehensively the ‘Yes’ campaign was defeated that I have seen some commentators on twitter suggesting that the Reading result was quite good on the basis that they did better than the national average. When the campaigns started I don’t think anyone could have expected that the result would be this catastrophic for the Yes campaign, but I am pleased that the outcome has been so decisive and I think it just goes to show that as the campaign wore on the more voters came to know about AV, the less they liked it.

One of the reasons trotted out by the ‘Yes’ campaign is this fallacy that AV will somehow restore trust in British politics. It will do this, so they tell us, but requiring MPs/candidates to work harder because they’ll have to get 50% of the vote in their constituency. Leaving aside whether or not the 50% bit is true (the subject of heated debate between the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ campaigns), this argument needs breaking down.

Firstly, whatever the faults of some MPs in the last Parliament (and in some cases they were very serious faults resulting in jail sentences), most MPs actually do work very hard, with long and unsociable hours. I can see how hard my own MP, Alok Sharma, works and I cannot imagine how he could possibly do more. Of course, some MPs are more industrious than others, but I just don’t see how changing the voting system is going to have such an impact on those who aren’t pulling their weight. Under the current system, it is possible to remove poor performing MPs even in the safest seats – just look at Neil Hamilton’s experience in Tatton where he was beaten by an independent in one of the safest Tory seats in the country (now held by Chancellor George Osborne).

Then the ‘yes’ campaign suggests that AV somehow increases accountability. I’m not quite sure how they work this one out. Their idea is that because the candidate will have to appeal to voters who would not normally vote for his party this will have the effect of making his/her views and actions more accountable to the people. But surely candidates are already trying to appeal to the broadest section of the community that they can. It seems to me that there are two ways this could go: either candidates will be reluctant to tie their colours to any mast for fear of alienating others and therefore the debate will be bland and voters won’t get to know what their candidates really think, or alternatively candidates will promise the world to everyone, leaving everyone short-changed when it then transpires they can’t deliver for everyone.

Personally, I’d prefer a system where candidates take definite and clear positions so that you know what they stand for, not just on specific policies but also what principles and general political doctrines will guide them.

One outcome of AV seems to be that it is more likely to result in coalitions than our present system. Now, I support the current Coalition Government and of course our Coalition Council here in Reading – I think our parties have done the right thing and we need to work together to get out of the mess our country is in. But I think coalitions should be an exception for exceptional times, rather than a rule.

And while we’re on the subject – some people who supported the Lib Dems last year are now apparently disappointed in them that they entered the coalition, although why they voted for them if they didn’t want to see them in power I don’t know. But if AV goes through this is going to happen all the time. You can forget those party manifestos that you’re all so keen to hold us to because they will be out of the window in favour of behind the scenes negotiations. And yet the ‘Yes’ campaign tells us AV will increase accountability? Seriously, how?

At the root of some of this argument seems to be the idea that political debate is bad. That adversarial politics is bad. That everybody should play together nicely and agree. Well, we humans don’t always agree. Moreover, that’s a good thing. Robust challenge is the best means to test policies and to hold government, any government, to account. A situation of near-permanent coalition does not allow for this. Continuous coalitions put power firmly in the hands of smaller parties who can make or break governments – just look at how long it took to form a government in Australia (using AV) where the fate of a nation fell to two independent MPs. How does this make either government or individual MPs more accountable to their electorates?

As an aside, I have been watching the excellent Danish crime drama ‘The Killing’ on BBC4 recently (best thing on TV this year by the way). One of the things that struck me about this was the sub-plot which involved an election for Mayor of Copenhagen. The candidates and the party leaders (there seemed to be 6 or all seemed to hold different portfolios under the incumbent mayor (also a candidate) in City Hall. Who was accountable for the actions of the administration? Everybody? Nobody? Is that really the kind of political landscape we want to create for our country?

Now I did hint above that I am not necessarily against using different electoral systems in different circumstances. If we were to have an elected upper chamber in place of the House of Lords I think there might very well be a good argument to have this elected by some form of proportional representation. The reason for this is I think there is merit in an upper house having a distinct purpose and a separate constituency from MPs. An upper house as a revising chamber would not need to maintain such close links with a geographic constituency as the House of Commons; in fact it might help it maintain a longer-term perspective if its members were not focused on short-term electoral interests. PR might allow this different perspective, although its not without its downsides.  

Getting back to the discussion on AV – my final point is that many, although not all, of its supporters see it merely as a small step on the way to their true goal of full PR. If only they would come out and say so perhaps they would be a bit more honest and accountable! I am entirely against PR for parliamentary elections, partly for the reasons that I might consider it being appropriate for upper house elections. But the main reason is that it means that real power resides not with the electorate but with the political party that selects candidates for its list and determines where on the list each candidate is ranked. Not to mention the fact that under such a system it is harder for an electorate to effect change of the kind that we saw in 1979 and 1997.

I’m sticking with First Past the Post – it’s fair, it’s simple and it delivers effective outcomes!

You can sign up to the ‘No2AV’ campaign here: http://www.no2av.org/why-vote-no/

The Department of Work and Pensions has published some research into GPs’ attitudes towards this new regime – there are some interesting findings.

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/summ2011-2012/733summ.pdf

For instance, GPs found that having the fit note had improved their discussions with patients about returning to work (61% somewhat or completely agreed with this) and in many cases GPs found that it had increased the frequency with which they recommended return to work as a means of aiding the patient’s recovery. A majority of GPs in the survey felt that the fit note had made a change to their practice and 70% of those questioned agreed that it had helped their patients make a phased return to work. An overwhelming 99% of GP respondents agreed that work is beneficial to people’s health and 88% agreed that helping patients to return to work is an important part of their role.

These findings are significant because it is easy (but lazy) to criticize these benefit changes as a blow to the vulnerable. In fact the change in emphasis from looking at what a person can’t do to asking what they can do can make a real difference to patient outcomes. The State should never have been paying to keep people ‘on the sick’ (as I’ve often heard it referred to). Instead it should be offering encouragement and phased support to those who can aspire to a return to work, whilst offering full support to those who unfortunately are not able to contemplate a return to work. It seems that the fit note might just be what the doctor ordered to help improve outcomes for everyone.