Gordon Prentice - Talking Politics

There is something pitiful about being on the sofa yet having no influence.

Yet this is John Prescott’s own assessment of himself.  On Iraq, the big man had no influence.

The former Deputy Prime Minister was simply the loyal lieutenant doing his master’s bidding.

Despite telling the Chilcott Inquiry that he found much of the intelligence on Iraq “tittle tattle” Prescott rallied support for the war within a supine Cabinet.

Of course, there was never any danger that I would be in the same room as the sofa, never mind sitting on it.

But along with so many others in the PLP and outside, I realised we were being led up the garden path to war.

In August 2002, in my monthly report to the Pendle Labour Party, I explained that Blair was assuring people that no decisions were likely to be made in the short term.

This was all part of the strategy of stringing everyone along even as the drum beat was getting progressively louder.

Prescott was in a position to do something about it. But he chose not to.

Attachments:

Report-to-Pendle-Labour-GC-August-2002.png

[ ]

253 Kb

Jack Straw is right to decouple the AV referendum from legislation to reduce the size of the House of Commons.

He says there is a risk of gerrymandering if independent boundary reviews are scrapped.

This led a furious Martin Kettle to denounce the Labour Opposition in the Guardian. He accused Labour of opportunism for deciding to oppose the Parliamentary Voting Systems and Constituencies Bill which is to have its second reading in the Commons on Monday 6 September – the first day back after the shortened summer recess.

Last week, the Director of the Constitution Unit at University College London, Professor Robert Hazell, said: “Constitutional change is too important to rush in this way. These bills have been introduced with no consultation, no Green or White Paper, and the government now wants to push them through Parliament at equally reckless speed. Both bills raise important constitutional issues, which demand proper scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament”.

Spot on, I’d say.

Re-drawing constituency boundaries to reduce the size of the Commons to 600 from the 650 we have today is bound to be controversial given that the changes are to be all done and dusted before the anticipated date of the next General Election.

Just think of all the casualties.

With truncated appeal mechanisms, I can see only trouble ahead.

To my mind, the problem is not primarily about the size of the Commons but more about the independence of its members and their willingness to stand up, speak out and be counted.

And, by the way, the House of Commons in 1832 had 658 members for an electorate of 812,938.

We are 44 million now.

Ed Balls is asking me to vote for him.

His leaflet, which arrived through my letterbox today, promises “he will defend our values and fight for fairness”.

Sounds OK to me.

And he also says he “will drive a cultural change in the Labour Party”.

Hmmmm.

He repeats the Harriet Harman line: “We must deliver the goal of 50% women in the shadow cabinet and, over time, in Parliament too".

Why?

Speaking only for myself, I prefer a shadow cabinet of at least 51% socialists (however loosely defined). The gender is entirely immaterial.

I recall resigning as a PPS in 1997 (as lots of us did) over cuts in lone parent benefits. The Minister responsible for the policy was a woman.

Was the Minister’s gender an issue? No.

Was the policy a problem? Yes.

But for those who, like Ed, think gender trumps everything, I have a suggestion.

Why not alternate the leadership by gender?

Withdraw and allow Diane Abbott a clear run.

And don’t tell me you disagree with her politics. That’s not allowed.

It is gender that matters.

You’ve said so yourself.

In 2008/9 Diane Whittingham was getting £180,000 as Chief Executive of the Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust.

Since then this busy little bee has taken on another “interim” job as Chief Executive of the underperforming East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust after the forced departure last year of Marie Burnham.

In May it was reported that Diane Whittingham would be doing both jobs “for the foreseeable future”.

If this is the case, maybe she could find time to reply to a letter I wrote to her on 13 April with two follow up e mails concerning the proposed closure of the Deerplay Children’s Ward at Burnley General Hospital.

Under the plan, overnight stays would be transferred to Blackburn with Burnley providing day care only.

Concerns had been expressed by the then Lib Dem run Pendle Borough Council, insisting the ward should not close.

I am not an expert on these things any more than the Lib Dem motormouths on Pendle Council.

However, I was aware that at least one local GP, a certain Dr Ions, had gone public, saying it was right that children staying overnight in hospital should go to Blackburn.

Was this a lone voice or a widespread view amongst clinicians? That’s what I wanted to know.

During the general election the future of the ward became a bit of a hot potato with the ludicrous Lib Dem candidate for Pendle, Afzal Anwar, chaining himself to the hospital railings for ten hours in protest.

He insisted he would not allow the closure to happen. He would either chain himself indefinitely or starve to death. I can’t recall which.

Anyway, this stunt got a lot of publicity as did 67 year old Gordon “candlelight vigil” Birtwistle, now Burnley’s new MP, who was at the scene.

Here they are, joined in protest.

Now I read that Deerplay will indeed close its doors in December.

And in the absence of any letter from Diane Whittingham or her side-kick Mark Walkinshaw (who was drafting a reply at the end of May) I must assume clinicians have no reservations.

In the meantime, I wait to see what Gordon Birtwistle, Andrew Stephenson and Afzal Anwar (if he is still about) have to say about the future of the Deerplay Ward having made such a song and dance about it before 6 May.

Not much, I suspect.

Postscript: In my experience, people on huge salaries are generally red hot at replying to letters so the Whittingham case comes as a disappointment.

I can’t recall Ged Fitzgerald, Lancashire County Council’s Chief Executive, ever forgetting to reply to a letter from me.

Mind you, he is on £194,655 basic.

And with bits and pieces and add-ons, £254,000.

Attachments:

Gordon Prentice letter page 1.JPG	[ ]	307 Kb
gordon prentice letter page 2.JPG	[ ]	451 Kb

Today's revelations in the Guardian are truly shocking.

They confirm my view that the war in Afghanistan cannot be won.

Why do I say this?

Afghanistan is locked in medievalism. We alone cannot modernise it. It needs the active co-operation of Afghans and I do not believe this is forthcoming.

We place great store in the Afghan National Army and the Police but these institutions reflect the society from which their recruits are drawn. Many are illiterate whose loyalties are uncertain.

Corruption in Afghanistan is deeply embedded – as it is in Pakistan. We should not be asking young men and women in uniform to risk death or horrible mutilations for the Karzai Government.

Last year, when I met MPs from the Afghan Parliament I was told, in a matter of fact way, that people with influence in Kabul were corruptly enriching themselves, buying supermarkets and property in Dubai.

There was, I heard, a big “money pipe” running all the way from Kabul to Dubai.

Sounds believable to me.

And there appears to be a never ending stream of suicide bombers, happy to blow themselves up, taking their fellow Muslims with them if needs be, in the belief that they will be rewarded in heaven.

This reservoir of fanatical suicide bombers doesn't look like drying up any time soon.

Today's revelations will also stoke the hostile anti Americanism that is already deeply rooted in Pakistan, itself a fragile state teetering on the brink.

So. What is to be done?

Let Afghanistan build its own future.

If it proves to be a threat, then follow a policy of containment – as was employed successfully against Iraq until the disastrous Bush/Blair war.

It is not our responsibility to impose, by force, good government on failed States.

Where would it end?

After all the promises made by Conservatives and their handmaidens, the Liberal Democrats, the 1.1 million Equitable Life policyholders are set to receive a fraction of what they believe is due.

Around one tenth.

They can expect £400 - £500 million. The details will be revealed on 20 October, submerged in the Comprehensive Spending Review.

The policyholders, dying at the rate of 15 a day, have been led up the garden path by the coalition parties who, in opposition, denounced the Labour Government for its inaction.

Back in May, in the first flush of victory, the new Lib Dem MP, Gordon “candlelight vigil” Birtwistle, assured his Burnley constituents: “We are using our position in Government to give policyholders the money they deserve.”

Complete cobblers!

Andrew Stephenson, my successor as Conservative MP for Pendle, has, typically, kept his head below the parapet. Don’t expect any fireworks from him. A few written PQs will do.

In the last Parliament, the Public Administration Select Committee, so ably chaired by Tony Wright, produced a series of reports backing the Ombudsman and calling for justice for the policyholders.

Birtwistle should get up to speed and become acquainted with the voluminous material that is available.

The Equitable Life policyholders in Burnley don’t want more hot air from Birtwistle.

They want action. And results.

What better spur to the reform of the House of Lords than for Conrad Black to resume his seat again after his release from a Florida penitentiary.

He famously gave up his Canadian citizenship to become Lord Black of Crossharbour, a Conservative peer. The whip was withdrawn after his conviction (sounds familiar) and when he returns to Westminster he will, no doubt, sit on the cross benches.

Canadians are, of course, fascinated by the whole drama and the CBC (Canada’s public service broadcaster) is following every twist and turn.

Black is not quite out of the woods yet.

Reports suggest that the US Internal Revenue Service is still after him for US $71 million in back taxes.

And US prosecutors have got to decide what to do now in the wake of the ruling which led to his release from prison.

Black wants to get out of the United States before you can say the word “re-trial” but, for the moment, he can’t leave.

I see that Black’s British passport has expired but, as a right trusty and well beloved peer of the realm, his new one will probably be fast tracked.

The provisions on resignation, suspension and expulsion from the House of Lords were, alas, dropped from the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill during the “wash up” period before dissolution.

But undertakings were given to reintroduce these provisions at an early stage.

A useful Commons library paper says this:

The clauses on resignation, suspension and expulsion from the House of Lords were amongst those removed from the Bill, as were those to end the by- elections for hereditary peers.

Lord Strathclyde, Leader of the Conservatives in the House of Lords, explained that he knew that there was concern about the clauses on expulsion and suspension from the second chamber, but that: It is not vital that it should be passed today. If we are the next Government, we will certainly wish to find an early opportunity to put this right.

Lord Tyler, the Liberal Democrat spokesman argued that the clauses on suspension and expulsion were “a real issue of principle, as well as trust and confidence in the parliamentary process and your Lordships’ House in particular”.

Time to act, I’d say.

The Academies Bill, now being rushed through Parliament, will allow so called “free schools” to be established, outside local authority control.

Polly Toynbee, in today's Guardian, says this will pave the way for more faith schools which she believes are divisive.

I agree.

I raised the issue of faith schools with Tony Blair in December 2001. I told him I hadn't met anyone who was signed up to the policy.

Chris Mullin records Blair's response in his Diaries:

“We are between a rock and a hard place” said the Man. “Better to have Muslim schools which are properly inspected and regulated than leaving education to the imams and the mosques.”

In fact, Labour's policy to encourage the growth in faith schools dropped out of a clear blue sky – as was the case with so much of Blair's agenda. He believed it was “the right thing to do”.

Here in East Lancashire, the Labour Government spent millions on new schools. Every secondary school in Burnley is new. Next door in Pendle we have two brand new schools and four others in line for major rebuilds – until stopped by the Coalition Government.

And yet despite this, the demand for separate Muslim schools continues to grow. Forget the gleaming new facilities that are already here, new “free schools” will be cobbled together out of disused warehouses or redundant commercial buildings.

We have a brand new Burnley College. But the redundant old building has been given a new lease of life and is opening its doors as an “international college” for 1,500 Muslim girls.

Last year, in Pendle, the charity, Islamic Help, bought a seven acre industrial site in Brierfield which was to have been home to a 5,000 place Pendle Boarding School for Girls.

There was a huge outcry and the plan was abandoned. We now wait to see what alternative proposals emerge.

After the Burnley disturbances of 2001, the community cohesion guru, Ted Cantle, warned of the development of parallel communities, separated by geography, ethnicity and religion.

This trend can only accelerate if we encourage the growth of Muslim schools.

Jack Straw, whose Blackburn constituency is one of the most balkanised in Britain, defends faith schools, saying you can't have Church of England schools or Catholic schools but deny Muslims the right to have their own. It is a strong point. But does it trump all others?

What if the consequences lead to a bitterly divided society?

Last week, researchers from the University of Leeds told us that Britain in 2051 could be significantly more diverse with ethnic minorities making up one in five of the population.

If this is the future there is no time to waste.

Young people should be growing up together, enjoying each other's company and absorbing each other's cultures.

Don't tell me this is going to happen on the back of more and more faith schools.

Today in the Sunday Telegraph, the Immigration Minister, Damian Green, vows there will no ban on the burka.

Common sense, I'd say.

Yet the pollsters tell us this will disappoint 67% of the British population, many of whom will rarely, if ever, see someone in the full veil.

However, here in East Lancashire it is by no means unusual to see a woman (we must presume) in a veil. People just get used to it.

It is a bit like hearing the amplified call to prayer warbling out from the minarets on Pendle mosques. The first time, it is a bit disorientating. Then you get used to it.

For me, the full veil is a signal that the wearer is not in any employment which involves face to face contact with people other than their co-religionists.

And since I want to see many more Muslim women in work rather than be trapped at home, I suppose I'd be unhappy if the veil took off in a big way.

But it won't. Not even a remote possibility.

In France, where there is a Muslim population of over 5 million, the number wearing the full veil is estimated at around 2,000.

The storm over the burka reminds me of the convulsions in Quebec in 2007 where a debate raged on precisely how far Quebeckers should be expected to go to accommodate recent arrivals whose lifestyles and practices they believe are inimical to their own.

Canada has a long standing policy of multi-culturalism. It is a nation of mosaics rather than the melting pot of its southern neighbour.

But within the Canadian federation sits the ever restless Quebec, desperate to protect its francophone identity and keep intact its cultural heritage which it fears is constantly threatened with dilution by incomers.

A special commission of eminent academics was set up to explore the concept of “reasonable accommodation” and where the boundaries should lie.

The debate was very polarised. Strident in rural areas and small towns but it took on a more measured tone in Montreal which is home to 87% of new immigrants to Quebec.

After a huge kerfuffle, the controversy seems to have blown itself out.

People are getting on with their lives.

Despite all my best intentions I find it difficult to escape the Third Man or commentary on the Third Man. This week, he is everywhere.

I am reflecting on how intensely relaxed Mandelson is about getting filthy rich.

This probably explains why he rushed into print so quickly.

Way back in 2006, the Public Administration Select Committee looked at political memoirs and said this:

“The question of motive is sharpened as more money is involved. It is in the financial interest of memoir writers to get their accounts published as soon as possible, and to ensure that they are titillating. Not only do authors have a publishing contract to consider, but newspaper fees as well. These do much to encourage the “instant” and “juicy” memoir.

“Simon Jenkins told us that he could: remember very well a certain Chancellor of the Exchequer, who shall be nameless, inquiring as to what his memoirs might be worth and the answer was: ‘A quarter of a million tomorrow, £100,000 next week, £10,000 two months from now. How fast can you write them?’ It was as simple as that—because there were going to be no sales two months from then. It is show business.”

Peter Hennessy saw the future all those years ago when he told us the publication of Alastair Campbell’s diary would be: “...the equivalent of an archduke being shot in Sarajevo in July 1914. It will be the opening salvo in the most ghastly mobilisation of the most wonderful exchanges in competitive memoiring…”

Blair's Journey is out in September.

Brown's can't be far behind.

There is, indeed, no escape.