Skip to main content

The PM programme today

There link is to a petition complaining about what I said on the PM programme today.

Here is a transcript of the first part of the interview:
Well I think they're still in my office. It's like occupying a CAB. We deal with people who have very serious problems. Like one problem we have been prevented with dealing with is that of someone who is not getting any benefits at all although they are entitled to them. We can normally sort these things out reasonably qucikly and the students are saying that "we are allowing people in and out of the office". Well, these are confidential problems. They're not problems that you can just deal with and announce to the whole world that you are dealing with them. You need to deal with them in confidence. It is only right for the constituent.

Are you annoyed

I am quite annoyed because it is so selfish of them to do that. I don't mind if they want to protest and talk to me and have a protest outside. But you've got to think there are people in society who are quite vulnerable who are short of money and are having all sorts of things, serious problems and these students don't seem to care about them at all.

Have you had a conversation with them about tuition fees.

I did have a conversation with the President of Birmingham University Students Union and one of the Vice Presidents a couple of three weeks ago. They asked to come and see me and I agreed to mee them and and we had a meeting. It was described as an occupation, but it wasn't in fact an occupation.

And how did that conversation go

Well, we had a discussion. You see my view is that the proposal from the government involves effectively a combination of the general taxation being used for perhaps a third of fhe funding and two thirds of funding coming from a collective form of funding based on graduates. Akin to a graduate tax, and my view is therefore that this is akin to the fairer alternative that we pledged to achieve or to press for.

Some people might find that hard to follow not least those who are sitting in your constituency office. It is not exacrtly the pledge you signed isn't it.

I find it hard to swallow that they care so little about vulnerable people that they are willing to disrupt the operation of my office.
The pledge is normally misrepresented by the NUS because the pledge has two strands to it. One strand is about not voting to increase tuition fees and the other strand is pressing for a fairer alternative and within there cannot be the concept that the amount of money that universities get has to be static the concept has to be that we are aiming to improve the system to a more equitable one. One that is based not on frightening off people on low incomes, but one that is fair and equitable one and that is the one that the government is proposing.

Would you say that you are a man that knows his own mind?

I am yes.

How are you going to vote on thursday.

At the moment I am very likely to vote for the increase simply because we cannot reward the bad behaviour from today. I have ...

Just a second, just a second part of your thinking may be to punish protestors

Well if they're going to behave this badly.
The problem you've got is this. If you reward this form of behaviour. If it has any effect which is a positive effect you are encouraging the behaviour in the future.

So you part of the reason you are going to reach your decision is based upon the protest.

Part of the reason has to be based upon the protest because I cannot allow that to have influenced me in any favourable manner whatsoever.

Why don't you know for sure how you are going to vote.

Because there are some factors that need to be identified between now and Thursday,.

What are they

One of the issues is what happens if people want to pay the tuition fees up front. I believe there should be some form of contribution towards lower earning graduates thats made during that process. There are also questions about the detailed implementation of the statutory instrument and the resolution as they come forward.


My view has been made entirely clear in that interview.
Part of the reason has to be based upon the protest because I cannot allow that to have influenced me in any favourable manner whatsoever.

Let me be entirely blunt about this. Disrupting the office today was not acceptable. Hence it should not have any favourable effect on the view I take when I come to vote.

It may not have any negative effect as well. However, those who are pressing this petition are arguing that such occupations are acceptable and that preventing my office from dealing with people's problems is an acceptable part of the political discourse.

I do not think it is.

Comments

Mark said…
You are a disgrace.
Lisa said…
I am stunned at Mr Hemmingway's comments: to think that the actions of a minority of people could influence this MP's vote on Thursday which will affect the future of millions of innocent people is appalling. What he is saying amounts to revenge voting tactics.

I do not condone illegal behaviour, but I do not believe the majority of students and future students would behave in this way. I do however, appreciate the anger that exists over this policy. The moves towards making concessions towards students from very poor backgrounds is nothing more than desperately trying to throw a few cherries into an utterly unpalatable cake mix at the last minute. A person's ability to pay a second mortgage for the rest of their lives (because once you add on living costs and interest...this is what it amounts to(!) is not dependant on their parent's circumstances so much as on their own (i.e. influenced by how much they can earn when they start their careers). That said, by all means, I agree that poorer students should receive some financial assistance to ensure that, combined with student loans, they do not struggle financially whilst doing their course.

I wonder how many of us would have ever voted LibDem or Conservative if we had known they had this nasty surprise in store? The solution I would propose Mr Hemming would be to raise fees to a more moderate level (say £5K maximum) and raise the higher rate of tax so that people like me (who enjoyed free higher education) can make a contribution towards future graduates because I do appreciate that our economy would do badly without them.
Sciamachy said…
I'm ashamed that I ever joined the LibDems & that I ever leafleted for them in Birmingham. What a truly petty attitude, that you would punish people for protesting against a policy that Vince Cable is introducing despite LibDem promises to scrap tuition fees. This shows exactly what sort of man Mr Hemming is. It's not what I worked to get into power. It's not what I voted for. It's not what I meant when I said I agreed with Nick. What a huge disappointment you've turned out to be.
You say you cannot be influenced by the protesters which is fair enough, but what about the rest of your constituents who elected YOU to represent THEM, surely you have to take their views to Westminster - not impose your views on them???
bread-sandwich said…
You realise these students protesting in your office won't have to pay the higher rates?

The people you punished are the children who haven't had a chance to have an education yet.

Do you really think that's justified?

Also, well done for keeping a nice, active blog which displays comments left by people who don't like what you say. I follow all my representatives this way, and it's always positive to see people making use of these systems.

I'm sorry that the protests have been stressful for you. I hope it doesn't take too long for your office to be useable again.

Best wishes
john said…
The rate of payment is going down for all graduates and for 25% they will pay less over their lifetime.

Popular posts from this blog

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…

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…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men: