Tag Archives: government

Exclusive Paddy Ashdown Interview ‘I Am Devoted To The Liberal Democrats’

Posted on by

Here is part three of our exclusive Paddy Ashdown interview. Take a look at part one and two.

That’s a good answer. In your diaries you are clear about how close you were to Labour before and after the ’97 election, and that PR was the price of coalition. Given that the Lib Dems eventually went into coalition with the Tories, with just a promise of a referendum on AV, how do you think events would have unfolded if you’d accepted a similar deal in ’97?”

I don’t know. I mean I can’t take you through the what would have happened parts of history. I suspect the circumstances would have been very different if we also had the referendum on a sensible system rather than a lesser sensible one. I don’t think you would have had the leading party in the country at the time deliberately doing what they could at the time to destroy the motion and the national newspapers at the time supporting them. That is the ‘what would have happened’ bits of history and we could all spend hours deciding how the world would be different  if Britain hadn’t won the battle of Waterloo; It’s very interesting but it doesn’t bear much relevance.

Paddy_Ashdown_3You also said in your diaries that you were worried that the party would start with Gladstone and end with Ashdown, what do you think was your greatest achievement as the Liberal Democrat Leader?

I have never ever believed that I am a good judge of my own achievements, I leave that to others to decide on what your achievements are. I was very proud to lead the Liberal Democrats for eleven years, I loved it, I am devoted to them. I was also very proud to be the International High Representative in Bosnia for the British Government.  No doubt I made mistakes in both of those jobs, probably quite a lot of them. When you have the privilege of doing jobs like that you can use it to your advantage and I quickly realised what I was good at and what I was bad at.

What do you think will happen with the Liberal Democrats in 2015?

I actually think all the polls now are wrong. I have to rely, as I always have done, on the good judgement of the british electorate, I think we have a good story to tell, we have been in government, everyone said we couldn’t do it. I think we have been more united than the Tories, tougher than the Tories, and played a really serious role in bringing our country through a crisis. If I know the British electorate at all well, when the moment comes, I think we’ll reap the dividends of that. I also think that the British electorate probably, having had the benefit of the coalition may not be very happy returning to absolute power in anybody’s hands. Also, having a coalition of some sort forces people to work together instead of spending all their time scratching each other’s eyes out. Maybe that is a much better system than what we had in the past. Those two things will help us I think.
Who Is Your Favourite Politician?

I think as someone said to me; ‘Who is my hero?’ and I said William Wilberforce who is as unlike me as you could possibly get, apart from Gladstone of course, who is the greatest Prime Minister this country has ever had both internationally and domestically, he was a man who said, “We did not march across the law of anti-slavery, we did not march towards a monument in the distance, we gathered friends like flowers along the way.” and I think he was an extraordinary politician.

Do you think we should have intervened in Syria?

No, I don’t. I’m against intervening in Syria while the opposition is so fractured and defused. Anyways, they’re being funded by extremist elements and encouraging extremist elements so, no, I thought that would lead us towards an engagement in what I think is a widening religious war. I did however think we should intervene in defense of one of the principles pillars of international law; a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has stood since 1926 and strained even Hitler and Stalin, and I thought that unless we were prepared to show strength to Assad, not by intervention because we wouldn’t have done, but there was a price to pay that was painful for breaking this principle of international law, then it would only have encouraged the wider spread of chemical weapons. So, no, I don’t think we should have intervened in Syria but I do think we should defend International Law and indeed one of the most important pillars of the international law that preserves some semblance of civilised behaviour in the prosecution of wars.

You testified against Slobodan Milosevic. Was that scary?

No, it wasn’t scary. It was more scary being bombarded by his troops. I mean, I testified about being in the middle of the Albanian villages when they were being bombarded by the main battle units of his army, that was much more scary.

I can understand that. You have done a lot of different things in your life. What is your favourite?

I think there is nothing I’ve done that will match my sense of pride of being a member of parliament for my own community of Yeovil. There is no thing you could ever do that matched being the representative in Westminster of the community you live in and love. So if somebody said you can have one line to put on your gravestone it would be ‘Member of Parliament for Yeovil’.

What was it like being an intelligence officer?

I was a perfectly ordinary diplomat

What is the best advice you have ever received?

Never stop learning.

Thank you Paddy.

 What do you think?

Two Thirds of Men Would Be Happy To Be a Stay-at-Home Dad

Posted on by

baby, shared parental leave, feminism, equality, childcare, leave, maternal, work, working mothers, lean in The times they are a changing. It is true that women and men will never be equal until men take up their share of childcare (and while we are at it, domestic chores) and it seems that that might actually be happening. A recent survey suggests that two thirds of men would be happy to be a stay-at-home dad.

Despite mums traditionally dealing with the majority of childcare, three quarters of men say they would be happy to quit work during their son or daughter’s first year so that their partner can return to their job, instead of taking the usual period of maternity leave.

And almost one in twenty men are already responsible for looking after their children whilst their wife or girlfriend goes to work.

It also emerged that 72 per cent of women would also be happy if their other half wanted to look after the children with 65 per cent worrying about the effect any time off would have on their career.

The statistics emerged in a study commissioned by national law firm Irwin Mitchell a month before a change in the law which will see couples have the opportunity to start sharing parental leave.

But these results show the new laws designed to encourage parents to share time off work following the birth of their child look set to be far more popular than government predictions had previously stated.

Irwin Mitchell employment partner Glenn Hayes said: “For a long time now, the traditional roles have seen dads returning to work just days after their baby has been born, while mums take a year or so away from their career to look after the children.

“But times are changing and it’s becoming easier, and more acceptable, for dads to take on the role of caregiver, while mums become the main breadwinner. What’s more, it seems the majority of men are happy to have it this way around.

“Thanks to changes coming into effect in April, working couples will be able to share that period of leave over the first year, meaning neither one has to miss out on such a large amount of time away – whether it’s from their career or baby.

“Shared parental leave is one of the most significant changes to flexible working rights but it is still uncertain how many families are expected to take up the new right.

“According to Government projections, as few as 5,700 men will apply over the next 12 months, but the figures in this survey suggest that the appetite for doing so could be much stronger with take up being much higher.

“So it’s important businesses and employers need to be prepared for the changes before they come into force, and know their rights as well as those of their employees.”

The study of 2,000 men and women found 66 per cent of men would be happy to take on the role of stay-at-home dad, whilst another three quarters would happily work part-time to allow their partner to return full-time.

Four in 10 say this is down to them wanting to be a bigger part of their child’s life than they would be if they worked full-time while 19 per cent worry they will miss out on too much of their child’s life otherwise.

More than a third say it’s the most sensible option for them as their wife or girlfriend earns more than them, with another 23 per cent not enjoying their job whilst their other half does.

One in twenty said taking the time off work will be less detrimental to their career than that of their partner.

Other reasons men want to take on the childcare role include it being easier for them to work around school or nursery hours than their partner, believing it would be less stressful to look after the kids than go to work and not wanting to commute anymore.

Sixty-one per cent even claimed they would be happy to become a stay-at-home dad, even if it had a detrimental effect on their career in the future.

But the researcher found that whilst most would be happy to share their decision, 23 per cent of men wouldn’t be comfortable telling their friends about their plan to be a stay-at-home dad, while 49 per cent would be worried about others judging them.

Glenn Hayes, an employment Partner at national law firm Irwin Mitchell, added: “These figures may take businesses by surprise and it is vital that they deal effectively with what is an extremely complex piece of legislation.

“It is important that employees start their conversations with their employers as early as possible in relation to shared leave, but it is vital that companies deal with the requests in the correct manner.

“Many businesses have been slow to prepare themselves for this important change and in doing so have left themselves exposed open to the risk of mishandling requests and inviting claims for discrimination.”

Shared Parental Leave rules allow those whose children are expected to be born or adopted from 5 April will be able to share up to 50 weeks of parental leave between mum and dad during the first year after a baby is born/child is adopted.

Previously, the majority of dads had two weeks paternity leave while mums could have up to 12 months maternity leave and nine months paid maternity leave.

 

 

Government youth work scheme failing 90% of jobless youth targeted

Posted on by

The Government’s work programme is an “abject failure” according to property maintenance boss Will Davis, MD of Aspect.co.uk.

“The fact that 90% of 160,000 18 to 24 year olds it pledged to put back into work are still out of work is a real cause for concern”.

The Government’s work programme offers business a subsidy of £2,275 for taking on a young person who has been out of work for at least six months.

Mr. Davies who pioneered ‘Boot camps’ in Britain to enable unemployed London youth to vie for a job said “bureaucrats are not getting young people working”.

“Jobs are what we need, not more hand-outs to subsidise companies to hire people to do jobs that are not a real requirement”.

“People will find money to employ people in areas that are a real requirement”.

Figures show that it has only paid wage incentives for 4,690 young people from its start in June 2012 to the end of May 2013 – significantly behind the target of 160,000 over three years.

Shadow work and pensions secretary, Liam Byrne, said: “The Youth Contract has utterly failed to get our young people back to work. This flagship scheme is on course to miss its target by more than 92 per cent”.

Davies adds: “The government needs to get out of the business of providing business with bribes to create artificial jobs”.

Government Urges GPs To Cut Pain Relief For Women Giving Birth

Posted on by

A lot of things make being a woman seem unfair. Periods, unequal pay, the biological clock, having your breasts stared at. But life is unfair and you just get on with your life. I mean, there is only a certain amount of time a person can stress over things, but yesterday I read something that I think is worth stressing over. Whilst reading the March 2013 edition of Easy Living magazine, in an article entitled, ‘How Can That Fit Through There?’, I read the following:

“In August 2012, new guidelines were drawn up for GPs, urging them to encourage mothers-to-be to have a natural labour with as little pain relief as possible in a bid to save the NHS money – given that an epidural costs £200.

Frankly, if the NHS needs to cut things then a women in the worst pain imaginable trying to push a baby through a 10cm hole is not the most humane choice. If men gave birth, would these ‘guidelines’ have been put through? I don’t have children, but I have been in a relationship for three years and it is on my mind whether or not to have them. This piece of information is not encouraging. I doubt any of the taxpayers money was considered when it came to Kate Middleton and her morning sickness (and neither should it).

If women stopped having children the world would stop. We need to be given more respect for the ordeal of being pregnant for nine months and then giving birth. Childcare is also expensive. Maybe this is the governments answer to the population crisis? Anyway, it feels like an attack on women and completely inhumane. If someone gets drunk and falls over do they get pain relief? Yes, and they should. I don’t want to live in a country where a doctor will see someone in pain and not give them pain relief. If the government really wants to save money why don’t they cut the £400 per month food allowance MPs get while families rely on food banks to feed themselves. Or the money to pay their rent and mortgage. Most of the population does not get paid expenses on these things.

We are not ‘all in this together’, some of us have a great deal more pain to bear.

We Need To Talk About Gun Control

Posted on by

The news of mass shootings in America has become a depressingly common occurrence. Each time the same thing happens: the debate on gun control.

This year two of the worst shootings happened in America, in a Colorado theatre and a Connecticut elementary school. This excellent Washington Post article has a run down of shootings in America for 2012. What is really interesting about the article is that it tells you what type of gun was used in each shooting. Some of these shootings were done with military assault rifles or automatic weapons. To have a gun is one thing, but for a civilian to buy this type of weapon, which only purpose is to kill people, is something that should be re-examined. In fact it was former President George W Bush that allowed a federal ban on assault weapons to expire in 2004 when he was president. President Obama has previously mentioned his support for a ban on assault weapons.

Yes, I did say those guns are used to only kill people. Aren’t all guns for that? Well, no. Farmers need guns, guns can be used for shooting clays, or animals. For hunting and even for protection. I am not pro-gun, but I do not think the issue is as clear as the hordes on Twitter and Facebook think it is. If you make guns illegal in America then there is an obvious problem: you drive the gun trade underground and people who want to protect themselves would not be able to legally own a gun. I don’t want to live in a world where only the bad people have guns.

On the same day of the mass shooting in Newton there was a similar attack on children in China, but with a knife as a weapon instead. No children actually died in the China attack, but there have been fatalities in similar attacks. it does raise a point: a gun is only a weapon when a human being is holding it. But so is anything else when there is an intention to kill.

President Barack Obama promised “meaningful action”, after the Connecticut shooting. Also saying, “As a country, we have been through this too many times.”

The fact is that most gun legislation is set by states rather than federal government, and Connecticut has relatively tight firearms restrictions by US standards. Some people are saying that the shootings are a mental health problem rather than a gun problem, but what is abundantly clear is that tighter regulation is needed.

According to a 2012 report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the US has 3.2 firearms homicides per 100,000 population compared with 1.6 for Canada, 1.0 for Australia and 0.1 for England and Wales,

There are an estimated 300m guns in America, nearly one for every one of the 315m Americans in America, and the National Rifle Association (NRA) has more than 4m members. America is a nation where guns are embedded into it’s very foundation, there constitution even declares the ‘right to bear arms’, even if guns were banned where would all these guns go? What is clear is that we have to talk about gun control, but solving the problem will not be easy.

Squatting Becomes Criminal Offence

Posted on by

Squatting will become a criminal offence in England and Wales on Saturday. Squatting in a residential building would mean squatters could face six months in jail or be fined £5,000, or both.

This would bring better protection for homeowners Ministers said, and “slam shut the door on squatters once and for all”.

At the moment squatting is considered a civil matter and homeowners have to go to civil court and prove that squatters trespassed before they can be evicted. After the 1st of September squatting will become a criminal matter and homeowners can complain to the police. If the police think the claim is genuine they can arrest the squatters.

The new law will also protect vacant residential properties.

The law will also apply to existing squatters to “stop trespassers rushing to occupy residential buildings before the offence comes into force”.

The housing minister Grant Shapps said: “For too long, hardworking people have faced long legal battles to get their homes back from squatters, and repair bills reaching into the thousands when they finally leave.

“No longer will there be so-called squatters’ rights. Instead, from next week, we’re tipping the scales of justice back in favour of the homeowner and making the law crystal clear: entering a property with the intention of squatting will be a criminal offence.”

Campaigners have criticised the new law saying it does not fix the fact that squatters have nowhere to go but Justice minister Crispin Blunt said homelessness was at the lowest level for 28 years and the government was spending £400m on homelessness and £164m on bringing about 10,000 empty homes back into use.

In Scotland squatting is already illegal. Homeowners in Scotland have right to eject squatters without serving notice or applying to a court for an eviction order.

Shadow justice minister Andy Slaughter said: “Homeowners around the country are concerned about squatters and rightly want assurances from this Tory-led government that their properties will be protected.

“The distress squatters can cause to families, as well as the financial damage they do, is completely unacceptable.”

The Week in Syria

Posted on by

There seems to be no let up for the people of Syria after another brutal week. Even Foreign Secretary William Hague described the situation as “bleak” and said that a peaceful resolution to the 17-month conflict looked “unlikely”. Kofi Annan quit as United Nations’ envoy to Syria.

Hague spoke as Syrian forces clashed yet again with rebels in Aleppo. Hague has yet to persuade Russia and China to back any international efforts for a path to peace.

Hague did not dismiss talks of Tony Blair to replace Kofi Annan. Annan said that his mission had failed.

Hague told Sky News: “It is a bleak time for Syria. This is, I’m afraid, the situation we warned about for some time. We won’t give up on the diplomatic work but given the situation we will of course step up our humanitarian assistance.

“We don’t want the situation to be resolved by violence. We want a peaceful transition in Syria. Sadly, we do not have the unity in the [UN] Security Council to put the decisive pressure on the Assad regime.

“Kofi Annan will be carrying on with this work until the end of August. Whoever takes on that role, it is going to need some change in the circumstances on the ground for Russia and China to change their position.

“If persuasion and argument was going to achieve a change of position, we would have done it by now.

“It might only be a further change of the circumstances – the further collapse of the regime, greater bloodshed – which brings Russia and China to change their mind.”

Hague said that the support Britain has given to Syria so far has been “non-lethal” and that Syria is now in a full-scale civil war.

“Here is regime that for 17 months now has waged war against its people. It has in many cases driven people to warfare and conflict.

“The prime responsibility for this situation lies on the regime. We are on the side of people who seek their freedom anywhere in the world.

“I do think it is right to support democratic movements in favour of the people.”

Meanwhile things have gotten worse in Aleppo as more than 20,000 government troops amassed around Syria’s second city, as the government warned the “main course” was yet to come.

Government artillery bases have fired mortars and rockets into the rebel held districts and in rebel-held Saheddin district, jet planes dropped bombs.

“The battle for Aleppo has not yet begun, and what is happening now is just the appetiser… The main course will come later,” a senior government security figure warned.

“All the reinforcements have arrived and they are surrounding the city… The army is ready to launch its offensive, but is awaiting orders.”