Skip to main content

Politics and Change

One thing I find interesting as a subject for study are the mechanisms for achieving change in society.

There are issues which are the subject of party political debate: such as the initial decision to go to war in Iraq, tuition fees and remain the subject of party political division.

There are other issues such as stopping free lunches for volunteers on benefits, nuisance phone calls and public family law (MSbP) which are not the subject of party political divisions.

What is interesting is the mechanism for achieving change where a party political division does not exist. The issue of Free Lunches, for example, was relatively straightforward. The problem was a bureaucratic decision somewhere in the middle of the Department of Works and Pensions. Sufficient political pressure needed to be created to ensure that change occurred. The rules were changed and that was it.

The issue of Silent Calls is more complex. Ofcom basically have been uninterested in stopping silent calls. They are, however, a substantial nuisance for many people. Gradually the rules have been tightened up, but there is no evidence of them being properly enforced. I have put a question in to Ofcom as to what they are doing and await the response. Ofcom should respond to pressure.

One of the more interesting debates is that about Public Family Law. There are so many aspects of this that have gone wrong over the decades that it is surprising the system is in such a mess. There are campaigns involving semi-coordinated court cases that review the law in respect of questions such as "is MSbP a proper syndrome". These questions are complex questions as there clearly have been cases of parents fabricating symptoms. In many ways these battles are more interesting than much that appears in the media. There are complex legal issues that have substantial impact on people's lives. Yet they are hardly ever reported in the mainstream media. This may be because of the complexity of the issues alternatively it could be because the focus is on the political sphere with its in built ad hominem fallacies.

An Australian Supreme Court case was one of the key decisions here. Also the fact that the World Health Organisation do not identify FII as a diagnosis also is important. What effect that will have in the UK is harder to determine because of the secrecy of the process, however.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…