Jonathan Bishop

David Cameron announced his ‘Big Society’ proposal today. It is shaming the Labour Party’s logic on the issue: Tories are bad, the Big Society idea is a Tory initiative, the Big Society is bad.

As a geniune co-operator I have been arguing for this for years – It doesn’t bother me which party introduces it. I do accept Labour concerns that its a cover for cuts, but I think a lot of Labour MPs’ complaints are typical of those who beleive in controlling state socialism.

If you look at the news, it seems there is little real money behind the proposal. I personally think the State’s purpose should be to collect tax to redistribute to strategically important initiatives run by the third sector, and groups individuals who the market would fail. Some how I think David Cameron is against redistributing wealth, especially if it is his and his cabinet colleagues’!

Some have also complained about the Tories’s other proposal today – the academy system – saying that a Comprehensive School education is better. However, I don’t think you should have to be disabled to get an individual learning plan – every child should have an education tailored to their needs. The Comprehensive system won’t ever provide that, whether academies will is another question. Equality of opportunity doesn’t mean giving everyone the same education, it means helping each child reach their potential by recognising that each child is different.

It was interesting to read Glyn Morris’ letter about the Lib Dems’ claims to be the rightful party to represent Pontypridd (Viewpoints, April 22).

They based their claims on the results of a local election in which they came first only two years earlier, but also in which some of their vote went to the Loony Party! While the Loonies seem likely to take more votes from the Lib Dems in Cardiff Central after coming above them in a poll of Cardiff students, here in Pontypridd things are looking much worse for them.

Of the numerous elections over the past two years in Pontypridd in which the Green Party stood, the Lib Dems always lost and Labour always won, including in a seat the Lib Dems held for a decade. In the election last year in which both the Greens and UKIP stood the Lib Dems came fifth. And guess what? Both the Greens and UKIP are standing in Pontypridd in this General Election.

With Nick Clegg making his party’s policy on Europe look like a cross between a German Shepherd and a French poodle (ever closer union, even less influence), these minor parties look even more likely to take votes away from the Lib Dems.

While the TV debates have given Nick Clegg the legitimacy of the established leaders, the people of Pontypridd and the UK as a whole are not stupid. They know that voting Lib Dem instead of Labour means either a David Cameron victory or a hung Parliament and that neither will be good for the economic recovery, in which a majority government willing to work with European and other world partners is needed.

Growing businesses, like mine based in Abercynon, are worried about what impact the next government is going to have on our ability to increase the number of people we employ to deliver for our stakeholders.

All parties are currently committed to increasing the minimum wage, which will increase business costs, especially if employers have to pay more national insurance on top.

The Conservatives’ policy not to increase NI seems on the face of it more appealing than that proposed by Labour.

The Tories say they can afford to make their changes to national insurance, but if you look at their statements in detail they can’t. They are based on back-of-an-envelope doubling of Labour’s annual savings of pounds 15bn in only nine months. At the last election, even the Tories themselves said it would take three years to make this amount of savings.

Yes the business leaders in England are right, that the NI increases are a tax on jobs. However, I’m not as foolish as them to believe the Tories are on the side of those wanting to remain in or enter the job market.

We all know their priorities are the wealthiest 3,000 households in Britain, and not those who have to work hard for every penny they have.

People who say they are against affirmative action like all-women-shortlists say the reason is because people should be chosen on merit – but when has anything relying on subjective judgment without full access to and acceptance of the facts been meritocratic?

However, it seems that we are not living in a meritocracy, but an inequitable partisan autocracy. An IPA, as exists in the UK, involves the hierarchies of political parties choosing people not on their ability to do the job they aim to be elected to, but their ability to deceive the electorate into thinking they will always do what they want, and their willingness to, on the contrary, do whatever the party hierarchy wants.

Conversely, an equitable individualistic meritocracy (EIM), as exists with applications to grades of membership with professional bodies, selects people on what they are able to do based on the evidence they have provided through demonstrable experience.

The main difference between the IPA organisations I am a member of, such as the Labour Party and the EIM bodies I am a member of, such as the BCS and IEEE, is simply a matter of objectivity, reliability, and verifiability; the Labour Party doesn’t expect you to provide evidence of your experience, such as through referees, portfolios or certifications like an EIM does, as they base their appointments purely on superficial factors such as whether you support the same opinion as them, whether you are willing to do what you are told by the hierarchy, and all too often, whether you are known to the selection panel.

For instance, I am currently working my way up the grades of the BCS and IEEE. Through increasing my education and experience in the application of IT to business, research and community problems I am ticking the boxes set by these EIM bodies, meaning I will eventually have enough evidence to apply for higher grades of membership. In the Labour Party however, like all IPAs, there is an interview procedure where candidates answer questions that trick them into providing evidence why they should be eliminated and not appointed. They will ask questions such as ‘Would you ever vote against the whip’. If you were honest, and said you would vote with your conscience, this would be reason to eliminate you. In an EIM on the contrary, voting on the basis of your best judgment in line with your competencies is encouraged and in some cases obligatory. For instance, if you were on the board of an IT company and voted in favour of the opinion of the Chairman and you knew it was against the interests of the company, not only could you lose your membership of the EIM but also you right to be a director.

I have a Masters of Laws degree in European Union Law, I have been involved in marketing campaigns to encourage young people to be involved in community arts, I am able to utilise a team of workers so I can more effectively define and meet the objectives of both my organisation and myself, and I am able to communicate my thoughts and listen to others in project meetings, where necessary arguing my personal opinion and at other times representing others’. Surely I should be sitting on a committee in the European Parliament by now, or at least one of my party’s preferred candidates for European political work. But this is not the case, as the Labour Party is not an equitable individualistic meritocracy but an inequitable partisan autocracy. I have experienced it myself when despite providing objective evidence of my abilities only my performance at an interview was taken into account. I have seen other people affected by it, where one of my contemporaries was eliminated from a contest for reasons that had nothing to do with his ability to do the job.

I joined the Labour Party because I thought its ultimate objectives were the fairest. I joined the Labour Party, not to further my own interests, but because on paper it seemed like the party that would best represent my values of fairness. Tony Blair convinced me that it was the party that would put power, wealth and opportunity into the hands of the many and not just the few.
However, I have seen the unacceptable face of the Labour Party, and no matter how much Tony Blair changed the Rule Book, he wasn’t able to change the people in the party. I am a person of great ability, yet with the exception of the Ogmore constituency, wherever I have been in the Labour Party I have been treated like an outcast, someone who was not welcome. I have not been treated with the respect someone of my intellect deserves, nor have I been given the opportunity to use my strengths for the benefit of the party, again, other than in Ogmore.

Democracy means governance by the people, not political parties. Representative democracy means governance by people who reflect the makeup of the country as a whole, and not simply people who meet the prejudices of an IPA organisation. For mean the ideal representative democracy would where institutions are made up of people who are representative of those affected by the issues being discussed, such as parents or teachers, and secondly by people who have the training and competencies required to initiate the change, such as legislator or regulator. The former could be selected based on subjective factors and more suited to reformed IPA organisations (perhaps Equitable Integrated Autocracies – EIAs), and the latter, objective, more suited to existing EIM organisations.

Throughout this current election campaigning period the Tories have been trying to triangulate to support co-operatives and my Party, the Co-operative Party, has been arguing that it is the Labour Party over the Tories that best represent the co-op movement.

I’ve never really been a fan of the NUS, believe that students should be part of proper trade unions and student bodies should be part of universities and colleges and co-operate with them rather than have confrontations with them. However, the NUS does what it says on the tin – it is a national union of students, that campaigns for student interests.

The Co-operative Party on the other hand, while ideally being the party that promotes enterprise, empowerment and sustainability, often puts its co-operative ideals second to its relationship with the Labour Party. As a Co-op Party member I have been asked to rebut Tory policy to introduce worker co-operatives in the public sector.

My co-operative values stand above any political association I may be a member of, and although I’m not yet convinced that the majority of Tories genuinely believe in the Co-operative Movement, I also know from experience that many state socialists in the Labour Party do not either, but obviously for different reasons.

Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.” This is in keeping with the 1st Principle of a co-operative, which is ‘Voluntary and Open Membership’.

If rules on human rights and co-operatives say this, then why is it that the Co-operative Party only allows people to be members of it only if they either are members of the Labour Party or have no other political affiliation. This does not sound very open and co-operative to me. The Co-operative Movement transcends political party boundaries. In fact, rules for co-operatives say they should be autonomous and only enter into agreements that don’t compromise this. I interpret this to mean that the Co-op Party’s relationship shouldn’t compromise its autonomy and mission. If the Tories do become the governing party after the election, I would like to think the Co-operative Party puts the interests of the Co-operative Movement first and opens its membership to Conservatives on the same basis as Labour Party members, and that is that they support co-operative principles and are a member of a co-operative.

I read in the Western Mail that the Tory Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Newport East said, ‘It’s Labour’s fault for dropping exam standards so every Tom, Dick & Harry goes to Uni’
I know the candidate, Dawn Parry, as she used to attend the same speakers club as me in Cardiff before transferring to the Newport one.
I think she’s wrong for saying that not everyone should be able to go to university, but the sentiment that you should be of calibre to go to university is something that should be aimed for. All too often people leave school unable to write essays, or to have critical and creative thinking abilities. These are the skills that I think are needed for people to have independence of mind and the drive to take on any challenge and see it though. I think with the Welsh Assembly Government’s skills-based curriculum things are moving in the right direction, where it is not what people learn that is important, but how they learn and express it.
It disturbs me that there are generations of people who do not have a decent education or working life; people who know no way of life beyond being on welfare benefits. At present the government stops those in fulltime education claiming benefits, but I think it should be compulsory for anyone claiming money from the State, whether benefits or tax credits to be engaged in further study or work experience. People doing voluntary work could claim Tax Credits instead of other benefits, and those who want to stay on income support or employment and support allowance should have to be taking part in training or a further/higher education course.

I note the draft proposals from the Boundary Commission regarding Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council and its impact on my ward of Treforest.

The proposal appears to suggest combining the Treforest ward with the Rhydyfelin wards to create a new three member ward called ‘Treforest’.

I support the creation of multi-member wards as a means of giving voters more choice and more effectively enabling political parties to introduce equality measures such as gender balance.

I think however the boundary commission needs to take into consideration the local situation. The relationship between Treforest and Rhydyfelin is like that between Manchester and Liverpool or Spain and Portugal.

This said, the local Labour Party of which I am a member has merged its Treforest and Rhydyfelin branches and a current councillor for Rhydyfelin was a previous councillor for Treforest. I think it may be more appropriate to name the combined ward ‘Taff Vale’ as a more neutral name because of its location in relation to the River Taff and the fact that the former Taff Vale railway runs through it.

Larger wards I feel is a must in order to move councils away from the parochial politics that has dogged local government in South Wales for centuries. I would like to think that the move towards larger wards could lead to local councils (community and town) covering bigger areas that could double as smaller Assembly constituencies to meet the larger membership of the Welsh Assembly recommended by the Richards Commission. This could also lead to the reduction of the number of local authorities to perhaps reflect the Assembly regional seats or the Wales Spatial Plan areas.

It may be prudent to consider whether these larger local authority areas could also double as multi-member constituencies for the Westminster parliamentary elections. Such a cohesive approach to local and national government boundaries could lead to a US-style town hall feel, where legislators and councilmen/women of the respective levels of government work together to create accountable and effective democratic units.

The Labour party has been an incredible part of the Labour movement’s struggle to increase opportunities for workers and make society fairer. It should be the natural party of all those who feel their talents are being suppressed by those with power. But how far has the party come in handing power to those who have been without for generations? Twinning and all women shortlists have meant the number of women in politics has increased. However, these can be undermined by emergency selections and tokenistic appointments.

Those who speak against positive discrimination say people should be judged on merit. This is right. But underrepresented groups have often not had the same chances to demonstrate their abilities as those who easily get the top jobs.

The Labour party selection officials say they are looking for the best candidates, and some have even stated their dissatisfaction with the quality of those coming forward. In my view, the party doesn’t need to look outside to find the best candidates. Although they are not out there ready to knock on the party’s door, they are already in the party in the form of members with untapped potential.

The British Olympic and Paralympic teams were not born the best in their fields. Many were born disadvantaged, but through being nurtured, coached and supported, some of them went on to become gold medal-winning Olympians. The Labour party needs to provide its members with similar support. It is no good drawing up criteria for what a Labour candidate should ideally be as the party should be proactive in transforming members who would otherwise not have the resources to become the best.

The trade unions have up to now played a vital role in the training and selection of Labour party candidates, many of whom have been competent union officials. The trade union link has allowed non-Labour party members to have a say in the selection of the party’s candidates long before talk of US-style open primaries. The party cannot, however, rely on the unions alone to develop its members; it is only through the Labour party seizing the initiative that it can become the force for social change in society that acts as a leading example for others to follow.

Each member that wants to be a candidate should be invited to have a mentor, perhaps a local councillor or governor, to guide them through the process. Each should be invited to a training course, which is nationally accredited and related to the personal specification for candidates and other public positions. This could do for the Labour party what the New Deal did for employers – raise the standard of those available in the marketplace so that there is more choice available to those choosing candidates. It would mean that all those with potential, especially those who were not born into privilege, have in the end an equal chance to represent the party and be judged on their actual abilities as demonstrated by an accreditation of their experiences.

On Thursday’s Question Time the Tory Alun Duncan ruled out his support for the state funding of political parties, but is state funding a price worth paying for a level playing field in the political process?

It was this Labour Government that brought in the legislation to create the Electoral Commission and strengthen transparency in the political process, and even now the Tories refuse to make all their accounts available for public scrutiny.

With the current donation issues facing the Labour Party, is it time that political parties are funded by the state? Some have suggested that political parties be funded based on their proportion of the vote, though I would like to see parties funded by the state based on the number of members they have in addition to a contribution from trade unions for the members that are also members of trade unions where those trade unions approve.

At the moment to run a successful election campaign the amount of money needed prevents new and smaller parties of exerting their influence on the outcome of an election. Multimillionaire Lord Ashcroft is exerting a disproportionate influence on politics through currently bankrolling the Tory Party. State funding would prevent this shameful ‘maluse’ of private capital to gain personal influence.