This is the age of the train...

I've moved to 'the other side' in the past few months, in more ways than one. My first piece of significant news is that I've found full-time paid work in journalism, after spending eight years or so as opposed to working in a corporate communications role or writing on a freelance basis. At the beginning of March I joined RAIL magazine, a respected railway industry fortnightly, as News and Features Writer, which among other things, has meant a move out of London to Peterborough.

The other piece of significant news is that I've moved my entire archive of work to Wordpress - as you may have already gathered by now, I haven't updated this site for quite some time. Now I'm established on RAIL – my work for the magazine appears in print every fortnight rather than online at the moment – I intend to continue writing on a regular basis on my new Wordpress-based website as well as other places.

I hope that you, dear reader, continue to enjoy my writing, which will, when possible, be published here. And if you don't see anything for a week or two, pop into your nearest branch of WHSmith and look under the 'Transport' section.

Here's Sir Jimmy Savile.

Work needs to be fair: and for work experience to pay, it needs to be paid

“We should not say that one man's hour is worth another man's hour, but rather that one man during an hour is worth just as much as another man during an hour. Time is everything, man is nothing: he is at the most time's carcass”  - KARL MARX

Real-life experience of work can only be a good thing. There is absolutely no doubt about that. It was, therefore, a relief to hear that Tesco have said they’ll offer people on work experience a choice of doing the government scheme, or a job: as long as they “do OK” on a four week work placement. That’s progress.

But the government’s "sector-based work academy scheme" has, predictably, been challenged by critics mainly on the left. “Exploitation”, they cry. “The modern equivalent of slavery” they say - something we supposedly abolished 200 years ago. Not even Hitler went this far, says the Daily Mail. And they’d know about that.

There is, however, something of concern to capitalism as a whole if we are to remove the right to payment for work in an environment where everyone else is getting a wage for their labour. After all, it’s hardly a radical left-wing statement.

Whereas I’m not against a work experience scheme per se, I'm deeply uncomfortable with the presumption that it is right that an enormous, billion-pound company like Tesco can get away with not paying people for work that paid workers will get a wage for. I can speak with some authority, having worked in Tesco myself, shelf-stacking as a student, many years ago. The people I worked with would be appalled that others would be expected to do the same job for no financial recompense, aside from jobseekers’ allowance. And unfortunately there's little opportunity for promotion in places like supermarkets – aside from back office or managerial work. Much of the work is menial, arduous and physically exhausting. It's not job snobbery to criticise an arrangement where people do work that is unpaid, mainly because it isn't community service.

These schemes are supposed to that helps give people a routine preparing them for the world of work. There is much merit in the principle of doing work-like activity, but how might you be expected to actually search for work while undertaking a 10-hour shift?

So who really gains more? The “employee” or the employer? There may be some expectation of an interview at the culmination of an individual’s placement – which, importantly, Tesco has said it will do, and also offer a job. But for all of those other employers that are still on the scheme, could it be possible that the scheme simply doesn’t serve the individual jobseeker’s interests whatsoever, but rather provide the employer with a source of cheap (i.e. free), desperate, casual, unpaid labour? What's more, non-attendance at the voluntary job coming with the threat of cutting off JSA is just inhumane.

To me, the whole thing is rather an unimaginative solution. It’s not Stalinist or totalitarian to expect government to step in and provide meaningful work schemes where the private sector has failed to create new jobs in the void created by public sector cuts. If Tesco are successful and continue to open new stores – and in turn, hire new staff, that’s great. But they should pay the people who put products on their shelves, and haul roll-cages in an out of warehouses, freezers and stockrooms, cleaning up rotten food while being on their feet all day long. Everyone will be happier for being recompensed for the work we do. And we do society at large no favours by demonising the unemployed, wilfully denying them proper work.

There is much about modern working life that is unrewarding; not least because the division of labour from the goods that we produce and the services we provide has never been greater. We can do much better as a society to make work meaningful.

Scotland’s future: reduced to opportunistic tinkering and simplistic choices

Rather like the Prime Minister’s spurious and self-seeking arguments against electoral reform, the Scottish people have now been told they must have a “straight choice” over independence.

In other words, the prospect of any kind of constitutional settlement aside from staying in or out of the union – in other words, ‘devolution max’ – is considered so unpalatable that the Westminster elite would like any referendum to be as simplistic as possible. David Cameron’s recent hint that he might consider more powers for Scotland, in the event of a referendum deciding against independence can be considered as a mere sop to nationalist sentiment.

The Scottish National Party is minded towards holding a straightforward yes or no ballot, and although it is thinking about including a 'devolution max' question – an evolution of the current powers vested in Holyrood. Yet Cameron, playing his finest colonial statesman, has made it perfectly clear that he does not intend to endow such choice to Scotland’s voters.

That range of options, however, is something that should be self-determined by Scotland’s people, and not dictated by Westminster. After all, creating interest in a debate on Scotland’s future among English and Welsh voters would be an uphill struggle, to say the least. Yet Westminster politicians of all hues remain of the view that Scotland’s destiny is theirs to shape.

Holyrood and Westminster are currently negotiating on what form the referendum might take, and when it might be held. In the meantime, the Lords’ constitutional reform committee has already expressed its feeling that devolution should not just be a matter for the Scottish people. That might well be true, as any dis-entanglement would need to involve the other constituent parts of the UK to some degree. Its main concern is "the potential to create different and competing tax regimes within the UK". That may be true, but that’s the whole point. Further devolution or independence would invariably mean tax-raising (or lowering) powers, and internal revenue arrangements which would suit Scotland rather than the UK as a whole. The noble Lords’ argument is weaker still considering the haphazard constitutional tinkering which has blighted the UK for the last fifteen years in fact; a perfectly adequate way of describing the future of their own half-reformed chamber. We just don’t do constitutional consistency in this country, and that’s the way our politicians have always wanted it.

Meanwhile, establishment parties at Westminster plod on with the same, tired old view that Scotland’s future is a political plaything, influence over which will occasionally be swapped between competing elites. Cameron considers Scotland as a somewhat romantic appendix to England where he occasionally visits his posh mates to go shooting; he can’t possibly be seen as anti-union in his party. Ed Miliband is petrified of losing Scottish MPs after Labour’s Holyrood wipeout in 2011. Nick Clegg doesn’t really seem to have a particularly distinctive view of his own, aside from saying that he believes in "greater discretion" and "freedom" for Scotland, pulling out antiquated labels like “home rule”. Political elites are doing their patronising best to ensure the status quo is retained. Every one of them is going against the grain of popular opinion. Good luck to the SNP.

The phone-hacking scandal: journalism at the crossroads?

Lord Justice Leveson is only halfway through his inquiry, but the first book on the phone hacking scandal has already been published.

To mark the launch, the Media Society joined forces with Coventry University, bringing together a panel of contributors, industry veterans and experts, for a debate on the state of the press – with particular focus on the tabloids. Raymond Snoddy once again chaired the debate in his admired humorous and democratic style.

Starting with the case for the prosecution, Kevin Marsh, the former editor of Today and a contributor to this book was “struck by the day that Sienna Miller gave evidence”.

Continue reading

Originally published on the Media Society website (co-written with Deni Kirkova)

Scottish independence: to be or not to be?

Alex Salmond could be toasting with more than a Scotch whiskey sometime in the next few years

 The fervour for celebrating nationhood in the run-up to Burns Night may or may not have been coincidental, but the debate over the future of the United Kingdom ramped up a level in January. David Cameron seemed to have caught many commentators unawares in giving Scotland's First Minister, Alex Salmond an ultimatum - making it clear that his government would welcome a binding referendum on Scottish independence – and only on Westminster's terms.

Salmond and his Scottish National Party colleagues argue that the Scottish Parliament already has the right to hold a referendum without any interference. Yet Cameron's government has already set itself in conflict with the Holyrood administration. Salmond had previously stated his intention to hold a referendum 'in the second half of the parliament', but Cameron is keen that it be held 'sooner rather than later' – possibly as early as 2013. The government's position can be summarised thus: don't let Alex Salmond get away with breaking up the Union by giving him 1,000 days to make his argument for independence to the people of Scotland. What's more, Cameron's call is for a somewhat simpler affair – a straightforward yes or no rather than asking about the preference for two varying degrees of devolution or independence, which is the SNP's preference.

Publicly, Alex Salmond is portrayed by his opponents as a bully, perhaps in daring to defy Westminster in setting the terms of the debate. Yet, although they might not admit it, many British politicians of all hues secretly admire Salmond, who became Scotland's fourth First Minister in May 2007. They adore the gumption of the man, a formidable parliamentarian and debater who has somehow managed to take both left-wing and right-wing positions, culminating in what the Spectator called 'an extraordinary victory' against eight years of Labour and Liberal Democrat rule in the Scottish parliament. Salmond has managed to steal both the clothes of social democrats while also appealing to conservative tendencies, helping to ensure that the Conservative party itself remains an irrelevance north of the border.

Seeking to get one up on Salmond, it is Cameron who has decided that an urgent debate on the future of the union is needed. And, with little regard for broader constitutional questions, Cameron would like the Union question dealt with once and for all, in order to bolster his own party's credentials as defender of the United Kingdom, and arguably, present a distraction from the government's other troubles. As a result, some have argued that Cameron, rather than Salmond, is playing fast and loose with the make-up of the UK. Little thought has been given to the consequences for England in a UK bereft of Scotland under the current settlement. Independence could, however, provide a resolution of sorts to the so-called West Lothian question, famously posed by the former Labour MP Tam Dalyell, whose constituency gave its name to the issue. This particular issue centred around Scottish MPs being able to vote on English matters – such as funding for the NHS – a peculiarity of the British constitution seeing as English MPs have no such powers in Holyrood.

Major constitutional issues aside, support for independence has jumped to 45% in recent weeks and edging ever faster to 50% in favour. With the Scottish question likely to be dealt with in the next three years, attention would inevitably turn next to Wales, itself emboldened with a devolved government although unlikely to survive without its larger neighbour.

Are we nonetheless witnessing the second act in the break-up of the union? As it stands, it could be remarkably easy for Scotland to decide to go its own way. Some Conservative backbenchers seem already resigned to a seemingly inevitable breakaway, with heightened suspicions of the Prime Minister's true intentions only exacerbated by renewed tensions with Eurosceptic backbenchers. Yet if Scottish MPs were to leave Westminster en masse, it would have a profound impact on the make up of the UK Parliament overall – and with vastly different outcomes for all political parties. As Gerry Hassan noted in the New Statesman, 'many Tories have already given up on Scotland and dream of losing the burden of Labour's 41 seats north of the border'. With the impact of proposed Westminster seat boundary changes taken into account, Labour would lose out regardless. Coupled with the current First Past the Post voting system, the prospect of permanent Conservative rule at Westminster may seem almost certain.

A complete evacuation by Scottish MPs from Westminster would, of course, be the ultimate development. Variants on a theme have included 'devolution max', giving Holyrood the full range of powers over tax but with Scotland asking that defence and foreign affairs remain under the control of Westminster. The SNP has previously also said that it would wish to retain the Queen as head of state, and the pound sterling as currency, meaning that full independence for Scotland with its own tax system, foreign secretary and army may still be some way off.

Regardless of the final settlement, all mainstream party leaders have demonstrated their 'unity over the union' – whatever that means in the current environment. Desperate to not appear anti-union, Labour leader Ed Miliband's position has seemingly reflected the Prime Minister's own: preserve the union at all costs. Yet Scottish nationalism isn't the preserve of one single party and never has been – meaning that the right to self-determination cannot be ignored. The late Labour politician Donald Dewar (the first First Minister of Scotland) had nationalist sympathies but without the ideological zeal of his SNP rivals. Once again, it may well suit Labour to moderate its position given that not all its supporters in Scotland - or those who may vote for the party in the future - will all be quite as positive about the United Kingdom in its current guise as the Labour leader is.

This piece was originally published in Mauritius News in February 2012.

Government refuses pardon for Enigma codebreaker Alan Turing

The Enigma codebreaker and founder of modern computer science, Alan Turing

The government has refused to grant a pardon for homosexuality convictions to the wartime codebreaker and computer pioneer Alan Turing.

A parliamentary motion noted the vital contribution made by Turing to Britain’s war effort by inventing the machine that tackled the problem of solving the German Enigma naval code, which became the subject of books and a film.

Contine reading

Football's big taboo: time for some real leadership on homophobia in sport

The Swedish player Anton Hysen: a "one off" as the only openly gay professional footballer in the world

I've never been a big fan of football, although my whole childhood was dominated by it. Many of my family are big fans of our local team, Ipswich Town (“The Tractor Boys”). Some of my family have even worked for the club itself over the years. And, they gain much pleasure from their interest, which is great. I did go to a few matches when I was a kid, but never caught the bug – I don't know why. In fact, when it came to any team sports at school, being a little uncoordinated and ungainly in stature, and a little bit blind, I preferred to sit these things out on the sidelines with a good book.

To sit through a live football match today would probably bore me, at worst make me feel a little uncomfortable. Yes, the tribal singing and audacious banter that goes wherever a group of football fans happen to be - the stadium, the railway station or the street – must bring with it a sense of comradeship and belonging that I probably envy, deep down. But the unease that I occasionally feel in these settings comes is a result of what seems to be one of the last remaining vestiges of public prejudice – that is to say chants and singing motivated by casual homophobia, even if the group dynamic doesn't intend it in a nasty or vindictive way. Nonetheless, it's the sort of environment I avoid.

The Football Association and groups like Kick It Out have done a great deal of work in eradicating racism in the game, notwithstanding the occasional high profile incident. What's important is that the game's authorities quite rightly take the issue of racism seriously, as do the media.

But what about dealing with homophobia in such a robust way? Watching Britain's Gay Footballers this week was a disturbing reminder of just how gaping the void is between the country's overall awareness and acceptance of homosexuality and where football as a game, an industry and a part of a society happens to be. The 'elephant in the room' cliché is an understatement. Homosexuality is simply not discussed in football, full stop. It is 20 years behind the rest of the country, long since moved on. Of course, footballers don't live their lives in isolation from everything else that's a part of our culture; be it fashion, music, film or TV. But those industries are by and large however, comfortable with the idea of out gay men – as are other sports including rugby and tennis to a large extent. Sadly, with respect to homosexuality football is still trapped in a world of unchallenged social attitudes, its star players and leadership alike abstaining from the responsibility of making the game more tolerant of diversity.

Britain's Gay Footballers centred on a thoughtful journey of discovery by the model Amal Fashanu, whose late uncle, Justin Fashanu, hung himself in a garage in east London in 1998. Justin was, to date, the only gay footballer to have ever come out in English professional football. There's a local link for me too, as Fashanu once had a trial with Ipswich Town.

But what drove Fashanu to suicide? We may never really know, other than by speculating on the consequences of the pressure caused by coming out, very much in the public eye, to a largely intolerant press and the even more hostile world of professional football. And there's more than a hint that Fashanu's sexuality was the cause of bullying over his sexuality which would be deemed unacceptable in 2012.

Back in the early eighties, Fashanu was a player at Nottingham Forest, and after having come out of the closet, Fashanu had claimed to be “accepted” by team mates, although he had admitted that they would often joke maliciously about his sexual orientation. He eventually became the target of baying, hostile crowds as a result. But according to former team captain, any criticism or mocking of Fashanu was because he was deemed to be not performing at the club, as the former Forest team captain John McGovern remarked in the programme. McGovern displayed staggeringly unfortunate ignorance of the sort of language that he seemed to find acceptable in conversing with Fashanu:

“Poof – that's just slang for homosexual isn't it? I don't even call that discrimination”.

OK, maybe he wouldn't. The meaning of language changes with each generation. But would be refer to a black player using the N-word? Even during less tolerant 1981, there's a question mark over whether a top league football manager would have stood for that sort of abuse. In the macho environment of the changing room, derogatory language relating to gay men was, it seemed entirely acceptable. And it was evident at management level too. Forest was, at the time, managed by the infamous Brian Clough, supposedly a committed socialist and one-time chair of the Anti-Nazi league. Yet he was light years away from his party's more progressive view on gay rights. As Clough famously recanted in his autobiography:

“Where do you go if you want a loaf of bread?” I asked him.

“A baker's, I suppose” answered Fashanu. “Where do you go if you want a leg of lamb?”

“A butcher's”.

“So why do you keep going to that bloody poofs' club?”

Fashanu frequented many gay venues which seemed to jar with the lifestyle prescribed by Clough, who had battled alcoholism right up until he died in 2004. We've all got our demons, I suppose. But is it any wonder that, therefore, given the treatment of Fashanu by the 'legendary' Clough, that this once brilliant player had lost all his confidence and had stopped scoring goals for the team? He was no angel, but Fashanu had become the target of constant crowd abuse because of his decision to come out. As Andy Wasley points out in his recent article on the subject, gay sportspeople who are out and comfortable with their sexuality perform better. Regardless of what he had said in the papers about his supposed sexual conquests, Fashanu deserved to be treated as a human being and a professional footballer and not with the contempt he appeared to have received from fellow players and managers alike.

Have things changed at all since 1990, when Fashanu outed himself of his own accord in the pages of the Sun? In conversation with Amal, the publicist Max Clifford related the view of Premiership players who had approached him. “Their career would be finished if some TV producer wanted them to come out” said Clifford, adding that “players are as frightened now as they were ten years ago. Football is still in the dark ages”.

And what has the Football Association been doing? Virtually nothing. Amal briefly interviewed the FA's diversity manager (apparently a tokenistic appearance – where was the chief executive?), who enlightened us little about what the FA might be doing to tackle homophobia in the game in future, other than the paltry £10,000 it has committed so far to an awareness campaign.

Football deserves better than this shoddy and ignorant approach to diversity, only serving to highlight the ignorance of the FIFA President, Sepp Blatter, indifferent to the potential issues that may be faced by gay fans in Qatar at the World Cup.

Football's institutionalised homophobia is doing nothing for the reputation of the game, and it's time in was brought kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century. I'm sure that many grass roots organisations such as the Gay Football Supporters' Network and Kick It Out! are doing as much as they can to bring about a change, but surely a stronger lead from those in charge can entice a few more fans of the beautiful game?

Canadian government threatens validity of same-sex marriages of foreign couples

Same-sex couples married in Canada – but originally from other countries – have been threatened with the prospect of their marriage being declared null and void.

In response to a divorce filed by a lesbian couple, one of whom lived in Britain, the other in Florida, a government lawyer argued that since the couple’s marriage would not be legal in either jurisdiction, it was not a valid marriage in Canada either. Although civil partnerships are allowed in the UK and same sex marriage is legal in a handful of US states, same-sex marriage is illegal is both countries.

Continue reading

The Iron Lady: and what it doesn't tell us about British politics

It's convention in opening any piece of journalism about the former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher that the writer adds a caveat along the lines of “whatever you might think of her” or “regardless of your own political opinions”, maybe adding a “she certainly divides opinion” for good measure.

Normally, this is a neat warning to the reader that the writer does not intend to divulge his or her own political opinions. As a political journalist and muesli-eating socialist not shy of expressing my own views, I'll happily defy the prevailing orthordoxy, much like Thatcher herself. It is hard, after all, to be completely neutral about a politician who, with her government, presided over massive and very intentional unemployment, attacks on minorities and electorally convenient and poorly-executed military adventures. The effects of the deep social wounds inflicted on communities across Britain as a result of her decisions remain with us in 2012, ripping apart a post-war settlement which had up until the 1980s entitled full employment, industry that made rather than serviced things, security in retirement and a functioning, if not perfect, welfare state. I was born just after Thatcher's second election victory and my earliest political memories are of her resignation, so I've probably got some licence to comment.

Meryl Streep's portrait of an elderly Margaret Thatcher suffering from dementia was everything you might expect from a fine Hollywood actor - looking, sounding, and probably feeling the part she was cast in. Whereas Andrea Riseborough had really shone playing the young, ambitious Thatcher in The Long Walk to Finchley, Meryl Streep triumphed in her portrayal; from the wartime teenager to the shrill young Member of Parliament, newly elected Conservative leader and wizened elder stateswoman. That's all very well from a cinematic point of view, and if Streep doesn't get a BAFTA, I'll be stunned. But the film needed something weighty as its central theme, and it certainly wasn't politics.

I'd had an inkling that The Iron Lady wasn't going to give us a blow-by-blow account of the miners' strike, Michael Heseltine's televised flouncing from the cabinet room or the battle over the Poll Tax. But most dramatisations of the lives of significant figures - political or otherwise - capture to some degree the agonising over decisions that changed the course of history. Context is crucial, even in Hollywood, and The Iron Lady was let down by the vague references to nineteen seventies and eighties 1970s and 1980s politics. Political anoraks and historians must have hankered for just a little bit more narrative around some of the big decisions – the wars, the crises, the sackings, the speeches, and elections. Instead, we got a film made for an international audience, a somewhat apolitical film, and in turn, a less compelling sense of who Thatcher was as a person and a politician at the height of her powers. Yes, dementia is heart-wrenchingly sad, and the poignant scenes of an old lady looking back on her life are very effective, but Thatcher's politics were bizarrely portrayed as almost irrelevant in a film about a former Prime Minister.

I'll concede however that international audiences and younger Brits alike would have a limited recollection, if any, of Margaret Thatcher's 1980s premiership, let alone her gradual fading in retirement, meaning that the lack of political narrative of any substance is barely noticed. It's also true that there hasn't been enough light on her as a person rather than a politician, but the flip-side is that you end up feeling nothing but warmth for this shuffly old dear because the substance of what she was about as a politician is so absent. Yes, the audience squirmed with delight where she grandly reprimands one of her Cabinet brood (it could have been any one of a number of grey suits) - but this film was very much about a woman's personality and character, and really not trying to say anything about the politics of the UK in the last 40 years.

Maybe I'm being unfair. As David Wooding, former political editor of the News of the World said:

“Put the political ethics to one side and watch this as a piece of pure cinema. Forget the historical inaccuracies, too. Maggie never wore a hat in the Commons, she was not with Airey Neave in the car park when he was blown up and I’ve never before heard she barked “sink it!” when generals asked what to do about the Belgrano.”

Historians: beware.

The Big Society spin on the New Year’s Honours

If the turn of the year is a signal of aspirations for the next, then we are left in no doubt that the enthusiasm for voluntarism and community action running through David Cameron’s government is here to stay.

An honours list, being a medley of awards to establishment stalwarts, unsung heroes, industry figures, creatives and performers, requires a fair amount of analysis to determine whether there are any trends in the group of people who receive them. In the government’s own words, “the vast majority of people recognised include those supporting the Big Society by making a real difference to their local community through volunteering, fundraising, social action and philanthropy”.

Continue reading

2011: a year in politics

A year ago, we could have described what had been a “challenging” twelve months in UK politics. And, if 2010 were challenging, then 2011 has been extraordinary. Harold Macmillan’s “events, dear boy, events” has never been a truer adage of the way politics can take unexpected turns.

 

David Cameron could surely not have expected an easy ride upon taking office as the Prime Minister of the first coalition government in over seventy years in May 2010. Convincing the electorate of the Conservatives’ deficit reduction strategy – and the consistent trashing of Labour’s record as big-spending, big-government and economically reckless - was the easy part. A generally acquiescent media helped Cameron and his party along the way, while the Liberal Democrats, as coalition partners, raised no significant objections to this line. But with no firm plan for growing the economy - austerity being the only dish on the menu – Cameron’s party has found that governing as if it were a single-party government with little opposition is not an option. Conflict would have to be engineered, distractions capitalised upon and personalities exploited if his party were to convince the electorate that despite being in coalition, it was still business as usual for the Tories.

As distractions go, no-one predicted quite how the Tories’ biggest friends in the media – Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers – would face such a spectacular crisis in the way that they did in July 2011 when news emerged that the mobile phone messages of Milly Dowler, a young girl who had been horrifically murdered in 2002, had been hacked into by News of the World journalists shortly after she disappeared. Within a week of these revelations – and many more - the paper was closed. Only a month or so before, the political establishment, including the Labour leader Ed Miliband, had cavorted quite happily in the company of Murdoch himself at News International’s summer party. All of a sudden, the political class was in crisis yet again, achieving a hat trick of scandal after cash for peerages and the MPs’ misuse of their expenses. Huge questions remain over Cameron’s personal judgement, both as Prime Minister and while in opposition over his hiring of former News of the World editor Andy Coulson as Communications Director, and it remains to be seen whether the resultant Leveson Inquiry into the ethics and practices of the media will draw out any hard lessons for politicians.

Despite the embarrassment of his murky media connections, Cameron, like Tony Blair, has demonstrated his own Teflon-like quality. Nothing sticks. What's more, he has found it convenient to direct flak in the direction of the Liberal Democrats. As leader of that party and Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg has never redeemed himself from the consequences of his party’s sudden u-turn in government in introducing fees of up to £9,000 for some university courses. A referendum on moving to the ‘Alternative Vote’ system for General Elections did not result in a Great Liberal Moment – with an overwhelming 67% of the voting electorate saying that actually, they didn’t agree with Nick. Any surge in enthusiasm for the Lib Dems during the 2010 election campaign had vanished without a trace by mid-2011 as the party struggled to make the transition from party of protest to party of government - still very much the third party, stubbornly languishing at around 10% in the opinion polls despite the trappings of office.

Meanwhile, there were plenty of distractions on the international stage. With the disaster of Iraq was still deep in the political consciousness, a decision to take military action in Libya eventually paid off with the eventual demise of Colonel Gadaffi. Rather, it was Europe that once again presented itself as a pressure point for the Tories, exacerbated by crisis in the Eurozone and Tory backbenchers’ desire to score one over their coalition partners. The supposed ‘veto’ wielded by Cameron against a treaty designed to save the Euro (supposedly threatening the City’s financial interests) left the UK more politically isolated than it has been for years. And although large numbers of British people remain of the view that things like immigration, justice, defence and employment rights should be decided by Britain alone, it remains to be seen however whether there is any appetite for the EU having a less of a role in areas such as the environment, foreign policy and trade rules. Asked about the UK’s continued membership of the EU in a referendum, one poll suggested that only 41% of voters wanted to stay in, with 41% wanting to leave – a sharp shift from recent polls indicating that up to 50% wanted to leave. Other countries went ahead with negotiations anyway, with a cost in personal and diplomatic relations, most graphically illustrated by President Sarkozy’s refusal to shake Cameron’s hand during a televised clip of the summit. There is no love lost between the two men.

Whatever happens in UK politics in 2012, it is less predictable than ever. While the coalition has remained stable, the condition of the UK economy does not show any great signs of improvement. Predicted growth has not materialised, youth unemployment is unacceptably high and the promise of many more vacancies in the private sector to replace those lost in the public sector failed to materialise. The next year will mark the halfway point of this notional five-year parliament – a point at which the Chancellor, George Osborne, may well have to adopt ‘Plan B’ for reviving the economy and creating jobs. Cynically, the government may choose to play the anti-EU card rather than admit defeat on the economy.

But with the aftermath of the English riots still raw in voters’ minds, there are evidently opportunities to bolster the government’s law and order credentials, a policy area in which Labour has been gaining some ground. Labour aren't keen to say too much about the deficit, or what they might do about it. But they are also aware that most voters reluctantly accept the cuts, and, despite the obvious pain, traditional opposition arguments based on public spending, jobs and growth may not wash with voters. Miliband will need a sharper strategy and need to think on his feet in response to the government attempts to woo voters with emotional causes such as the Europe question, or the question of whether they feel safe in their towns and cities, which ultimately have little impact on the money in voters’ pockets. 

Getting all sentimental - about a bus

A little over six years ago, I indulged myself in a secret geeky pleasure – a ride on the penultimate AEC Routemaster on a normal, cross-London bus route. It was a little misleading, because these 1960s veterans continued to ply their trade on two special ‘heritage’ routes, the 9 to Kensington High Street, and the 15 to Tower Hill. But the final day witnessed an outpouring of emotion for a public transport icon that only the British could be capable of (see files marked 'End of Steam on British Rail' and 'London's Last Tram').

As a reasonably recent arrival to London in 2005, I was already nostalgic for the Routemaster, with their 1950s design and quirks of a bygone age. They plied the streets of Dalston where I first lived, a flotilla of weathered red metal, rubber and comfy moquette. I missed them so much that I even ended up doing weekend work as a conductor and guide for a company that specialised in Routemaster charters when money became tight.

I'm normally never a stranger to sentiment, but I recognised these museum pieces couldn’t go on for ever without significant re-engineering, time and money (the first one was built in 1959 after all). An impending 2017 deadline imposed by the Disability Discrimation Act sounded the death-bell for these purring red beasts. Mayor Ken Livingstone had made it clear that, since the introduction of German-built bendy buses on the high-capacity Red Arrow routes in 2002, the future was not going to be the preserve of elderly double-deckers with an open ‘hop-on, hop-off’ rear platform. The Routemaster was, after all, evolved from a design which, admittedly with the addition of a roof and pneumatic tyres, was little different from the pre-war B-Type, and later RT type. Why then, in 2005, would anyone want to operate a vehicle that was prone to accidents around its rear platform and which, without passenger doors, could be very cold in winter?

 
It took a Tory mayor, Boris Johnson to take that somewhat retrograde step – much against the advice of industry professionals and those who said “it can't be done”. But Boris did it. The proof of the pudding for me was on Saturday, as I perused the Thomas Heatherwick-designed Routemaster New Bus for London. In tune with London's aspirational classes, it was parked up outside the brand-spanking new Westfield shopping centre in Stratford, itself the epitome of modernity situated on the Olympic park. Londoners were invited to inspect their new public carriage, and they seemed impressed during my short visit. It is indeed a beautiful vehicle which may finally render redundant the insult 'he/she/it looks like the back of a bus’; the NBfL is far from ugly. Its striking curves, traditionally-inspired seating and flooring and other bespoke design touches make it a winner, at least from an aesthetic point of view. Oh, and like many of London's new buses, it's a hybrid – so the Toyota Prius loving classes should come flocking. 
 

Like all good design however, the proof of the pudding will be in how it fares in every day use. The new vehicle seats just 64, and there is less space for wheelchair users and those with pushchairs – facilities which bendy buses seemed to have in abundance. The first two prototypes of eight initial buses are due in service on 20 February on the arduous 38 route – a bus route which has become ridiculously frequent in recent years, and one which runs not too far away from Boris' own home in Highbury. So let's see how the residents of Hackney and Islington deal with an open-platform bus six years after the last one ran in their locality. It is a high-profile risk to take for a Mayor of London who is so keen to see this expensive and quirky pet project succeed. I hate to be a cynic, but even if it does succeed I'll wait for the first person to fall off the back of one and become seriously injured (or worse) and see what the Mayor thinks about his new bus then. 'Elf 'n safety may well win the day - the passengers of 2012 just aren't those of 1962.

Meanwhile, is it just possible that the average passenger just wants a seat on the way to work – and isn't particularly bothered about what the bus looks like?

Doing it all again: why I'm striking tomorrow

Today I was told by a friend that, as a public sector worker, I'm part of a 'bloated, inefficient mess'. I thought hard, but struggled to see the relevance of his point, when considering the record performance of the small but high-profile part of the civil service I work for. Despite only having a workforce of about 415, and having shed around 40 or so jobs over the past year as a result of funding cuts, its staff are dedicated to what they do. All this is against a background of continuing redundancies, a government-wide recruitment freeze and a two-year pay cut.

We're confident that what we do is worth more than that though. Public sector workers – and yes, there are a heck of a lot of 'em – do vital jobs that are often unnoticed and yet are very noticeable in their absence. At the end of December, I'm leaving the civil service after eight years (with a few gaps) to pursue my career in journalism – I won't be a public sector worker for much longer. But I'll nonetheless withdraw my labour on 30 November 2011 as I would not be prepared to lose nearly £90 a month extra from my salary in protest as a result of the government's proposed 3.5% rise in employee contributions. I'll also have to work up to eight years longer for it. When the cost of living has increased so rapidly and living standards have in fact gone down, something has to give.

The truth is that public sector pensions are entirely affordable, and that public sector workers are a victim of short-sighted political choices, rather than remaining the beneficiary of the entirely reasonable status quo. Lord Hutton, the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and even the Office for Budget Responsibility all agree. Yet, the proposed changes to pensions amount to nothing more than a levy that will raise more from public servants than the levy on banks in order to pay off the deficit.

To me, it is grossly unfair to shoulder even part of the blame for the deficit on teachers, ambulance staff, nurses, midwives, doctors, firefighters and civil servants. We didn't crash the stock market, wipe out banks, take billions in bonuses or dodge tax. In protest at this attack on our current pensions arrangements, it's all to play for and is worth fighting for tomorrow.

My Top Charity: Shelter

It all started with an attractive bearded man with a clipboard on London’s Regent Street one cold, dark November afternoon about five years ago. I normally make my excuses when I’m approached by charity fund-raisers on the street, but unlike a lot of  ‘chuggers’, he made a compelling case as to why I should give away my bank details there and then; among the heaving mass of shopping tourists. I hope he now works somewhere important in Shelter or another charity because my direct debit has been going out ever since. And quite unlike many other causes I’ve flirted with in the past, I have never wavered in my support.

Continue reading

Guarding radio's sacred flame: Gwyneth Williams in conversation with Gillian Reynolds

Watch the video of this event.

Meddle with the BBC, and you meddle with the psychology of a nation. Or, more specifically, should Radio 4 Controllers meddle with the fundamental cornerstones of the nation's best loved spoken word radio station, they will be told in no short shrift what listeners think of their decisions. If you have read the excellent potted history of the station, And Now on Radio 4, you will get a slightly more detached, yet sentimental view of this national treasure – much is written of the trials and tribulations faced by various controllers over the years. Radio 4 is, quite simply, the station with the most vocal and critical audience of any on the airwaves.

Continue reading

The PCC is dead: Does television hold the key to better press regulation?

Timing is everything. The Leveson Inquiry, which began on Monday to look into the culture, practices and ethics of the media, will make recommendations on the future of press regulation and governance. But what about the freedom of the press - that politicians constantly tell us they support - in that drive towards the highest ethical and professional standards? 

Many in the media – particularly journalists – are somewhat aggrieved at what they see as an overly critical spotlight on their profession in the light of “the most important reputational issue the press has to face up to” - the News of the World phone-hacking scandal.

Continue reading

Eminently quotable...

...according to Third Sector magazine. This was picked up from my Guardian piece last week.

Rethinking the unthinkable - are the Conservatives the new party of gay equality?

Remember David Cameron’s cringe-inducing interview just before the 2010 General Election with GT? The then Leader of the Opposition got so flustered that he had to ask his press officer to halt the interview because he couldn’t present a convincing line on equality to the interviewer. With these images in the collective consciousness of gay voters, and without the convenience of the Tories being in government to dispel them, it was still easy to badge them as the nasty party, as Theresa May had once said.

Continue reading

Does 'big society' spell the end of charity as we know it?

With charities providing more public services, some feel like small government departments.

When is a charity not a charity? We are seeing the end of the clear dividing line between what government does and what the voluntary sector does. The government at all levels has made it clear that it is uninterested in directly providing public services, leaving it to charities, social enterprises and ethical companies to battle it out. The Victorian notion of a charity – giving money, goods or time to others – is becoming unfamiliar to the British public in the age of the big society. Are we, therefore, seeing the end of charities as we've known them?

Continue reading

Them and Us: A Special Relationship?

If there's one thing that politicians and journalists really don't agree on, it's the so-called Special Relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. It deserves capitalisation not just because of the absurd way in which it is exploited, but arguably because it's often to the benefit of the Americans rather than the Brits. What makes it special is, as they might say, the Million Dollar Question. Like many long-standing marriages, it often appears somewhat dysfunctional and you're never sure whether the two sides really do love each other. American presidents come and go, while successive British Prime Ministers do all they can to rekindle the passion. Is it something that simply exists in the imagination of the British political establishment?

The Today programme anchor and long-standing BBC man Justin Webb is well placed to speak about the political and cultural differences between the United States and the UK. With his new book, Notes on Them and Us, he's taken the time to reflect on what stands us apart from our cousins across the Atlantic – as well as the bonds that tie us together. Webb returned to his alma mater, the London School of Economics, at the invitation of the Media Society and Polis to discuss his own reflections on the subject.

“We didn't have an academic interest in the US – we moved for the sunshine” opens Webb, in conversation with the New York Times's London correspondent and author of The Anglofiles, Sarah Lyall. With a young, energetic family and a career-defining opportunity offered by the BBC, you can't blame him. In fact, he's done the return journey twice.

But the culture shock was soon apparent, recalls Webb, when the unthinkable happened. “We knew a guy who worked at CNN . And we went to his party at which there was no booze at all”. And, horror upon horror, “they were drinking cherryade”. This might have been fine for the school tuck shop, but for a party of east coast media types? To a Brit, this was unthinkable.

It was occasions like this, as Webb jokes that are “a misunderestimation [sic] of the cultural differences between you and us”. Indeed, it's clear that Webb's affection for the country is unmistakeable. Something about community ties and a can-do spirit seem to have sparked his enthusiasm for this country. It's because “Americans are generous, not just to strangers but to themselves”. The first thing that comes to mind is a calorie-laden hamburger with fries, but there's more to it than that. Webb talks about an “ideal of attachment”, with references to religion and of pride in geographical roots. Americans are proud to be from Wyoming, or Maryland or wherever, but there is no corresponding sense of belonging from the citizens of Somerset, for example.

What's more, Webb concedes that the influence of religion on American politics is somewhat overstated, referring to Karl Rove's dismissal of evangelical Christians as “not terribly reliable”. The British, after all, have an established church, arguably wedded to our political institutions far more than Fox News is in the US. Nontheless, Webb is critical of the standard of broadcast journalism there. “American broadcasters don't get real players. They get proxies who just lay into each other”. That leads him to comparison with the UK parliamentary system. “It may look messy but at least we can do things". Lyall retorted: “at least our constitution is written down!"

While organs such as Fox bleat about America's supposed terminal decline, Webb sees it as somewhat relative “compared to the rest of the world”. And maybe that's not such a bad thing. Yes, there's persistent unemployment, and the ever-present threat of terrorism. But Americans have always been exceptionalist in their outlook, and Webb puts it into historical context: Barack Obama is clearly not the first President to be blamed for economic woes that pre-dated his term of office.

There's plenty to learn about the ways in which the US can teach Brits a thing or two: questions about philanthropy for example are sparking “an interesting debate”. For example, the European way of increasing funds for the public good was through higher taxes, while Webb's observations in the US convinced him that it was not necessarily higher taxes that encouraged benefactors, but rather easy ways of giving large sums of money.

Webb's overall view is that there is a fundamental divide in the special relationship. But it is no more than a cultural split between the two nations, maybe in part due to a British uneasiness with American self-gratitude and an audacious, unapologetic embracing of religion. But with a more honest recognition of it – possibly even a celebration – a more mutually beneficial collaboration is possible.

Originally posted on the Media Society website.