Skip to main content

Office Closed

My office in Sheldon has closed today. This is because of threats against the safety of my staff and potentially also against constituents visiting for help with their problems. The police have advised us to close the office.

Those people who are making the threats need to recognise that the people who suffer are my constituents who may be homeless, destitute or facing arbitrary action by the state - where their last resort is to come for help from my office.

The demonstrators are arguing that we should not be making any cuts in Higher Education. It is clear, looking at the global financial situation, that we have to make cuts in some areas. Hence the demonstrators need to think carefully about what they are saying.

I support wholeheartedly protecting the more vulnerable members of society against cuts in services for them. That does mean that there are quite severe cuts in Higher Education. The alternatives are much worse.

We are proposing a fairer alternative to the current system of tuition finance. The demonstrators are particularly unhappy that I have argued for this publicly.

The threats against my staff in an attempt to silence me are fundamentally wrong. The demonstrators should be ashamed of themselves. They are hurting the weakest members of society in an attempt to protect privilege for themselves.

Comments

Battersea Boy said…
> They are hurting the weakest members of society
> in an attempt to protect privilege for themselves.

Why did my thoughts immediately turn to the MP expenses scandal, when I read these words of yours?
Jerry said…
This is ludicrous John, I wasn't aware that the situation had turned so bad, I do hope the staff and yourself are okay, there is no need for mindless violence or even threats of violence, it servers no purpose and there is no room for it in the society the coalition is trying to build.

Everyone has the right to protest everyone has the right to freedom of speech but when innocent people like you and your staff cannot work in the office with the threat of violence then what is it all for.

I heard Nick Clegg on Radio two this afternoon showing his upset at the broken promise he made before the election regarding tuition fee's, if the country was not in such a mess then the promise made by the Lib-Dems would stand true, sadly something has to be done and doing nothing is not an option
PoliticalHack said…
While I'm certainly not going to condone violence, I support the right of students - and others - to protest at the changes being forced on the education sector.

The pledge to vote against tuition fees was made in full knowledge of the economic situation, which had not worsened when the coalition agreement was made - in some respects, it had slightly improved.

Clegg knew that the manifesto commitment could only ever be fulfilled in the improbable event that a Lib Dem majority government was formed. As the devil did not choose election day to ice skate around Hades, this didn't happen.

The pledge was designed to obtain student votes in the certain knowledge that it was never going to be carried out.

And Jerry, the coalition agreement specifically allows the Lib Dems to do nothing by abstaining on the issue. That isn't the same as voting against it, which is what John and others promised to do.
john said…
Protesting is not a problem. Violence and smashing things up is.

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…