European Elections

I’ve just returned home from the European election count in Reading. Whilst the result for the South East Region hasn’t come in yet, in Reading Borough the Conservative Party came out as clear winners with the Labour vote trailing off sharply. But the biggest story of the evening was the poor performance of the Lib Dems, who came fourth behind the Greens and not very far ahead of UKIP.

Richard Willis has more detail here.

*BREAKING NEWS: I see that the BBC have just announced that the BNP have won a seat in Yorkshire & Humber.

And the French Open champion is….

ROGER FEDERER!!!!!!!

I am absolutely delighted that Roger has won the French Open, finally equalling Agassi’s achievement of winning all 4 slams at the same time as equalling Sampras’s record 14 slams.

His record in the slams over the last year is now better than Nadal’s; he has won 2 and reached the final of the other 2, whereas Nadal has won 2 and fallen short of the final in the other 2. Another stat which really shows his class is that he has reached the semi finals of all the grand slams for the last 5 years (20 consecutive semi-finals).

It is a privilege to have seen Federer play during this tournament (even if it was the first round).  I will be rooting for him to go on and regain Wimbledon in 4 weeks time.

Before I move off the subject of tennis, does anyone know why the TV guys get the players to sign the camera lens at the end of each match? Is it just me who thinks this is absolutely pointless?

I’m having a quick coffee and catching up on the news after the excitement of the tennis, but will shortly be off to Rivermead for Reading’s European election count.

French Open

This year, for the third year running, I hopped on the Eurostar over the Bank Holiday weekend to visit Paris and catch some live grand slam tennis at Roland Garros.

I saw both British No. 1s and both world no. 1s, as well as Roger Federer. When Nadal emerged onto court for his first round match there was a noticeable murmur as we beheld his rather odd combination of grey shorts, bright pink t-shirt and hi-vis yellow sweat bands. Yuk.

 

Despite his outfit, all in the crowd were probably confident that we were seeing the eventual champion, but as events turned out we were wrong. Nadal apart, Federer has been the best player at Roland Garros for the last 4 or 5 years so it will be great if he can finally win one – I am, as you may have guessed, a bit of a Federer fan!

Roland Garros is great, but somehow doesn’t quite have the atmosphere that Wimbledon has. It feels more cramped, although perhaps a little bit more focused on the tennis as a result (there’s no sipping Pimms and strawberries and cream). Instead of watching the big screen from Henman Hill, the French tennis-going public’s option is a cramped square between Chatrier and No.1 Court – there is a big screen and there is a bit of history there too, with statues of the ‘4 musketeers’ – famous French tennis legends of yesteryear (I’m not sure who they actually are as the place was way too packed for me to actually get a good close-up of them). It definitely isn’t as welcoming as Wimbledon from that aspect. The courts are noisier and less respectful towards the players – to the extent that one umpire was left making sarcastic observations from the Chair whilst oblivious people took their seats slowly and the players waited to play.

Overall, Roland Garros is less comfortable. The food outlets are less varied and have huge queues….and there are only 3 sets of loos in the entire complex. Compare to Wimbledon which has a set at each staircase on each show court. But it is an easy walk from the nearest metro station and there is no need to pay extra to take a taxi or bus. There are no ‘freebies’ for those waiting in the queue, but they have a great and easy system of obtaining tickets and foreign visitors can have ‘e-billets’ sent by PDF. You have to present your passport or other ID with your ticket, which seems a good way of discouraging touts (although there are plenty of them). Also, the Roland Garros complex is near the old Parc de Princes, which I know as the former venue of rugby internationals (from the tv – I never went there).

Last year I discovered the actual Roland Garros when I visited the war museum near the Eiffel Tower (which, by the way, you can see if you have a seat facing the right way on Chatrier court). I had heard the name Roland Garros over many years, without actually having a clue where it had come from. It was only last year, when I saw his photo, that I learnt that Roland Garros had been a French pilot killed in the First World War (also a tennis player). Some day I should find the time to visit the tennis museum, but when I am at Roland Garros I am more interested in seeing the tennis.

Disintegrating Government

As you would expect, I’ve been out all day working on the election, firstly with a spot of telling at a polling station and then running a committee room.

I got home shortly after polls closed, only to hear on the radio in the car that James Purnell has resigned from the Cabinet. He waited until the polls closed so that his actions could not be blamed for Labour’s poll performance, but his resignation seems even more of a bombshell than those of Hazel Blears and Jacqui Smith because he has openly challenged Brown to stand down. He has stopped short of putting himself forward as a challenger to Brown for the Labour leadership, but surely it cannot be long before someone does.

It all seems to be falling apart at the seams…previously I thought that Gordon Brown would last until the end of the Parliament and that we were on track for an election next spring. Now, I really find it hard to believe that he can last the week, with 3 members of his cabinet resigning in the space of 2 days plus what are expected to be very poor results for Labour at the polls. And I’m now hearing rumours that David Miliband may resign tomorrow.

Update

The Spectator, which originally reported the Miliband rumours, is now saying he has come out against Purnell’s action, which suggests he is not intending to resign tomorrow, although anything might happen. Earlier this week it seemed like both the Chancellor and Foreign Secretary may be the victims of Gordon Brown’s planned reshuffle – will he have the courage to remove them both now, with the possibility that they might just up and follow Purnell and the others?

Respect in Politics

I have always been a great supporter of MPs and politicians in general and despite falling stock amongst the general public, I am still of the view that actually it takes some gumption to put yourself forward for public office, to put yourself in the public eye in the knowledge that you’ll get blamed when things go wrong and rarely garner the deserved praise when things go right. In my experience most of the people I have met in politics across all parties are primarily motivated by a desire to do good, do the right thing and to serve their communities.

So, whilst not defending those MPs who have clearly strayed, I do think this expenses scandal has had the unfortunate effect of further reducing politicians in the eyes of the public and actually I don’t think that’s a healthy thing in a democracy. This scandal has given people cause to say to us, on the doorsteps, “I’m not voting for any of you – you’re all the same”.

They’re wrong; we’re not all the same.

We are young, we are middle aged, we are old. Retired, self-employed, employed, students, parents, childless, carers. Professionals, academics, skilled, non-skilled. We work in all sorts of different areas: teaching, banking, law, accountancy,  electricians, plumbers, social workers, military, trade unions, charity workers, volunteers, construction workers, healthcare, marketing, sales, lobbyists, taxi drivers, writers, business people, entrepreneurs, computer programmers…I could go on and on like this, but you get the picture.

We don’t look alike, sound alike or, most importantly, think alike. Not just this, but there are profound underlying differences between the parties on the way we approach policy. One thing all of us have in common, however, is that we decided to get involved in the process, to give up our spare time to attending meetings, delivering hundreds of leaflets in the rain on Saturday mornings, attending fundraising events, speaking to people on doorsteps.

Now is the time for all of us who care about the democratic process to try to rebuild the connection between politics and ordinary life and to show that actually there shouldn’t be a chasm between the two – politics should be a part of ordinary life.

There is a challenge ahead for parliamentarians to clean up the expenses system and bring integrity back to Westminster. But it is also a challenge to all those people who are dissatisfied with politics – what are they prepared to do about it? Are they prepared to join a political party, help shape its ideas and choose its candidates, even become candidates…or do they prefer to criticise from their sofas and stay away from the polling stations?

Expenses – the saga continues

As I sit in a cafe in Paris* with my newspaper (actually a copy of the Spectator), my little coffee and my croissant, the Expenses row seems a million miles away – especially as I’m reading last week’s issue, in which the story did not feature!

I’m hugely disappointed with those MPs of all parties who have clearly submitted claims without any thought or care for the reason that the expense system exists in the first place. Many of the claims reported in the Telegraph in recent weeks are outrageous (to say the least).

It is, of course, perfectly reasonable that MPs should be entitled to claim reimbursement in relation to expenses reasonably incurred in carrying out their job. I include in this some form of support for those MPs who have to live in two locations. But…..how can clearing the moat be necessary for performing the job of an MP? A massage chair? An £8,000 TV? At the other end of the scale, some of the items claimed for were very minor (the Telegraph reports a chocolate Santa for 59p for example) which suggests either that the MPs concerned were very, very miserly, or that they submitted receipts covering all manner of expenditure without any regard for those items that were justifiable and those that were not.

Like most people, I’ve felt angry and disappointed about some of the claims. Regardless whether you feel that MPs are paid too much or too little, or whether you think they should set aside their own personal comfort and ‘sacrifice’ to be an MP or whether you think they are entitled to second home and associated expenses, much of what has been claimed was plainly wrong. I don’t care whether the claims were strictly within the rules – it is wrong to claim for something that is not necessary for you to do your job.

As constituents, most of us expect our MPs to have homes in or near their constituencies, so that they can regularly attend local events and meetings and so that they are aware of issues affecting the local population. However, as their ‘day job’ is in Westminster those who live outside greater London need some kind of overnight accommodation – but it doesn’t have to be luxurious and the MP shouldn’t profit from it. Functional ought to be sufficient. How could anyone think that the taxpayer should fund an £8,000 plasma TV when a decent LCD model costing no more than £200 would be perfectly sufficient? It’s just a complete loss of reasonableness and proportionality.

One response to this problem might be to say that MPs shouldn’t expect to have a home in their constituency – but that would further reduce the link between MP and constituents and make them seem further out of touch than the public already assumes them to be. Perhaps the answer might be to house them in hotels, but I wonder if this would be more cost effective, long-term, than rented accommodation? Whatever the new reformed system is, it should be recognisably similar to the kinds of solutions used by businesses in providing for employees who work away from home. For example, when I had to visit a different office last year for work, I was put up in a hotel (one night trip), but when my brother had to work on a project away from home for six months, his employer rented a flat for him and his colleagues.

It will be interesting to see what happens and, scanning the headlines, I can see that things have already moved on whilst I have been away….let’s hope that the new era will bring a transparent politics and enable politicians to start rebuilding respect.

 

* I was in a cafe in Paris when I wrote this…now I am back in London.

Council Tax

This evening the Council met from 6.30 to 11.10 in a continuation of yesterday’s meeting. The revised budget did not pass and we will return on Monday evening.

Sorry this is a very brief post – as you can imagine I’m a bit tired now! Can’t promise to blog tomorrow as I have a very busy day in work and a scrutiny meeting in the evening.

Tories vote to stop Labour squeezing Reading dry

Last night the Council gathered for the annual budget meeting. This is the meeting where the council sets the council tax for the coming year (2009/10). Last year, with elections looming, Labour opted for a 1.9% increase. This year, with residents increasingly affected by the credit crunch recession (let’s call it what it is, credit crunch sounds like a breakfast cereal) you would think Labour would have tried to do the same. Oh no! There are no elections this year so, back to true form, Labour put forward a whopping 4.24% increase .

Reading has enjoyed a thriving economy over recent years and as council taxes have gone up and up you would think perhaps the Council might have something to show for it. But it hasn’t. Failing services, aborted capital expenditure programmes and depleted reserves.

The minute anyone suggests that maybe, just maybe, now is the time to tighten the belt a little, Labour jump onto their favourite bandwagon: apparently all we Tories want to do is to slash frontline services. Not True. Absolutely Not True. It’s a lazy argument from a tired administration.

We need to support front-line services – now more than ever. But has anyone thought that if you keep squeezing ordinary tax payers over and over, more of them are going to need those services? By increasing council tax well above inflation year on year this Labour administration has been herding residents towards the dependency state.

Last night the Conservative Group voted against this disgraceful budget. We have argued for a council tax freeze. Many residents will be facing a challenging year as they have to make cut backs to their household budgets and we think that the Council should be trying to help, not making things work. The Lib Dems also voted against the budget, although no-one I spoke to was quite sure why, as they seemed happy enough to put council taxes up by 4% (sorry, 3.99%).

The result is that the budget did not pass last night, we went through the other business and at 11.10pm the meeting was adjourned – we will be reconvening this evening at 6.30. Anyone can come down and watch democracy in action from the public gallery!

A short sabbatical…

I know everyone else has been furiously blogging this week about the Council meeting on Tuesday and you may be wondering why I have been so silent…

Well, I’ve been a bit foolish. As we don’t have local elections this year I thought I would use my spare time (not that I actually have much) to do a spot of studying. I know, I know, I’m completely mad. In my defence, my boss has a training budget and there are only the two of us to spend it…and I thought a little something extra to put on the CV is no bad thing in the current economic climate. Unfortunately, it seems I have tied myself to a rather demanding schedule, so for the next month or so I shall probably not be posting very much.

In the meantime, if you want to read more about the Council meeting I recommend this account, from Cllr Willis.

BBC news report on Reading’s Children’s Services

Here is the BBC’s latest report on this story.