No Woman No Cry?

Do women in government get a harder time than their male counterparts?

The recent furore surrounding Ms Smith was gold for tabloids - sex, shame and a home secretary all in one story...not since "back to basics" have journalists had an easier day, or week, at work. I'm not sure, though, if it would have been the same for a man. If Jack Straw's (for a random example) wife had claimed for some naughty little extras would they're have been a constant hounding of the guy, a media vying for blood, content with nothing less. Was everyone secretly waiting for the woman to fail as home secretary, it's not a woman's job after all is it - police , guns and nasty, scary criminals and all.

Similarly, the name Harriet Harman is enough to provoke the nastiest reaction in the nicest of people. Now, I'm biased but I think she's fab (she told me to be a MP and I almost fainted). However not many do, even within the party many (including a minister who I thought better of) shudder at any mention of the harrier. Maybe a strong woman, not afraid to speak her mind, is too much to take. Alright she can break that ceiling, just as long as she keeps quiet once she's up there. When she spoke for the public on Fred the Shred's pension she was hushed by the Downing Street machine. Even if she is a formidable character who's difficult to warm to, so are many men in government - John Hutton's hardly a loveable rogue for God's sake.I think she probably gets the hard time she does simply because of her gender. A man fighting for the rights she does would be hailed as a hero, would he not?
Oh and Hazel Blears. Maybe even the mention of her name suffices to expand on my point.


*Would mention Ruth Kelly but I don't like her either.

Clear Red Lines

"Where's my apology?" asked Nadine Dorries for her Prime Minister's question on an historic day for the country. Sod the economy, sod the poor, sod the unemployed...what about me, me, me? Again and how I hate to do it, but there my friends lies evidence for Tory priorities. Lloyd George would be spinning in his grave.

Meanwhile in the real world where politicians debate policies and running the country, Darling drew clear red lines between us and the party who believe we should walk on our own, or be left to crawl on our knees. Unafraid of retreating on a New Labour promise, he taxed the wealthy to pay for securing the future of a generation. The price of not doing so, and a disaffected, unemployed youth is too high to contemplate.
I hope there are little or no cuts in public services - a legacy of New Labour will always be record investment in the NHS and education. What we must do now is exploit the opportunity that unpopularity yields.
It can't get much worse, many expect Cam&Co to ride into Downing St next year, if we commit ourselves to being, once again, the party answerable to the people of this country and not to the City then we have at least our moral integrity to boast. I know many New Labourites are as allergic to the notion of morality in politics as many a Tory, but morals, they may be making a comeback. May even be 'trendy' again. If, which is still possible, this display of Labour bravery and commitment transfers to the polls then who knows what may happen.

Conversely, the severest downturn since WWII could wake our party up and bring disaffected Labour voters back. In doing so, maybe just maybe, there's a chance that the Etonians may have to wait longer than a year to get their mucky hands on the power they so crave.

Harry Potter and the chamber of the Commons.

Do celebrities have a place in politics? I've often wondered whether or not famous types who 'come out' as a certain Party's supporter really do help (or indeed hinder) said party's electoral appeal. Would it be underestimating voters to suggest that celebs hold sway over their decisions?
Cheryl Cole, the nation's favourite pint sized Geordie, said in Vogue the other month that she was a Brown supporter, suggesting Cameron was a bit creepy. Hands up, I got a bit excited. Well, I suppose it can't hurt can it? But no 'Chezza-bounce' was reported.Which got me thinking, could celebs make any difference at all, does it depend on who's endorsing who, or should they just keep their bouches shut?

Let's be fair, Labour have cooler 'stars' to reel off as supporters, though it wouldn't be hard, - Eddie Izzard, Jo Brand, Stephen Fry(I maintain he must still be Labour contrary to recent reports), Alan Rickman, Jason Isaacs, Patrick Stewart, Noel Gallagher, Ken Loach, Billy Bragg and the touch of stardust from JK Rowling, I could go on, for a bit. The Tories on the other hand have relatively few to boast, at least few that admit to their Tory tastes...someone once said the following list resembled the dinner party from hell. Here goes, deep breath Cilla Black, Ian Botham, Frank Bruno, Joan Collins, Ronnie Corbett, Paul Daniels, Jim Davidson, Ken Dodd, Nick Faldo, Anneka Rice, Peter Stringfellow, Anthony Worral Thompson and Marco Pierre White. I invite you to boycott any product or programme affiliated to those in blue.

So does any of this make a difference? Should Labour be ringing JK to hop on board Prezza's GoFourth bus round the country? Should Cameron be approaching the delightful and politically astute Jim Davidson for some priceless A-list endorsements? I can see the amount of question marks that litter this blog, but I really want to know. CelebPoliticos - could they even increase participation in politics? Although it might be rather depressing, maybe it's a pragmatic marriage of two very separate worlds.

*I apologise for any offence caused by the photograph used. He's not funny and he's not clever, I know.

In Place of Fear

The luxury of opposition in recession is bewildering. Tory policy on the economy (despite Carol Vorderman's expert help) , the NHS, housing (despite Kirsty Allsopp's expert help) and pretty much any other area remains as elusive as ever. When they back the Government's stance on this economic crisis, they are seen as honourable - putting party politics aside and recognising the gravity of the situation we face. When they oppose Govt. spending, they're seen as the voice of "us taxpayers", standing up to the state-worshipping spendthrifts who care not -a- jot about public debt.
Fine, Labour had many years enjoying the luxury of being the 'anti-establishment' party, the voice of the people. The Tories can have their moment. One Tory tactic though, maddens me. Fear.
Tories have always capitalised on public worries, divide and conquer, destroy unionised workers - power in the hands of the working many is dangerous. That has been pretty evident, those who reject such tactics usually reject the party. What Cam&Co, however, have done recently scrapes the barrell of Tory morality. They say we are saddling our children with a debt they will be paying off on their deathbeads. Nice one, bring in the kids, death and debt. Cast the net wide, sure to hit more nerves that way. This emotional blackmail is real sleaze, slippery politics which preys on the most vulnerable and fearful in our society. What C&C neglect to mention is the price of 'doing nothing' at the moment. "Shortchanging the future" was what Obama called it, the social cost of a generation of unemployed young people can't be measured in terms of GDP.
So let's reject the use of fear by this policy-free party. In times like these it shows what they're really made of. Not empowering the people, but keeping us quiet, scared and desperate. Please God, not that desperate.

A rule for one...

When first hearing of 'smeargate' I was hugely annoyed. What really got me was the fact that the laziness and childish acts of one unelected employee of No 10 and another self-elected representative of the Labour Party could drag us through the mud in such a way. The subject of this blog, though is not 'smeargate', it's hypocrisy.
May I firstly say that the content of those emails was below the belt, unnecessary and infantile.
However, I have never seen interviews as sanctimonious and opportunistic as the ones I've seen over the past 5 days. Nadine Dorries and Chris Grayling (not to mention Iain Dale and Guido Fawkes[?!]) pop up on the BBC or Sky news about once every half hour. They talk of how shocked and hurt they were by the content of the emails and how 'regret' wasn't good enough. They want blood God damn it. So if the reverberations from the stamping of Etonian feet hasn't yet reached Downing Street, may I cut in? You want your sorry? We're still waiting for ours.

The stench of hypocrisy reeks. About three weeks ago, John Prescott brought a piece of footage to light on his GoFourth website. Tory MEP Daniel Hannan had featured on Fox News, he talked of how Obama was wasting our good old 'taxpayer's money' etc. etc. and then he said something frightening. He spoke of the NHS being a 'failed socialist experiment', he warned America of the perils of 'socialized medicine' and suggested our National system had been a mistake. I watched mouth agape, I have to say I was raging. After Prezza had called for Cameron to distance himself from these comments there was silence. No statement. No 'regret'. No sorry.

If Cameron can stand by, silent, whilst one of his party's elected representatives preaches that our NHS was a '60 year mistake', then how dare he spark up demanding a sorry from Brown over petty, infantile emails? Either they are both responsible for their subordinates or not? Surely this is telling. Cameron preoccupies himself with party political jousting and one-up man ship (the crimes with which he charges Draper&co) whilst one in his own ranks denounces the most important public service we have and he's tongue tied. If playground, bully-boy emails were worth a statement, why isn't the rubbishing of our NHS?
I regretfully demonstrate Tory priorities. Sorry.

12 years New?

'New Labour' has been in government for almost 12 years now, as a political machine it has been operating even longer. I make no secret of the fact that, although I understand NL has brought electoral success- the likes of which 'Old Labour' had never done, I have never been a huge fan. Generations of my family have been members of the Labour Party, yet as soon as 'New Labour' came into being, they left. I could understand the need for a centre-left reinvention in times of 'boom' when Thatcher's individualistic influence had changed the psyche of our country and rendered 'socialism' the dirtiest of words. But times have changed.

This "credit crunch"(doesn't that phrase trivialise this crisis?..."like a credit crunch with your tea love?") is a force for change the likes of which I have never seen. This is the time for Labour to shed it's cloak of insipidity and become reborn. The People's flag aint deepest pink after all. When public sentiment swings against bankers instead of 'benefit scroungers' and Nationalisation becomes a word one can now use in polite company, an opportunity has arisen - one we can't afford to let pass. Polly Toynbee called for "strong red lines" to distinguish Labour from the Tories. There are many differences. But there could be more. Is it therefore time to ditch the 'New' from 'New Labour' and become what we always were once again, not old, not new, just Labour. After all something that's over fifteen years old is not really New after all, is it?

The Brink of the Abyss?

I stand here, on the brink of the abyss. Ready to dive into the blogging arena for the first time. I won't begin with a 'real' blog, need to accustom myself to this first.
All I'll say is that I hope anyone who reads what will follow enjoys it's content, I'm sure it may evoke extreme opinion...which I look forward to.