LESS than 18 months after Derby's Liberal Democrats declared themselves saviours of a care home, the same group of councillors has confirmed it will shut.
In an alarming act of hypocrisy, Derby’s Lib Dems have put the future of every care home in the city in doubt and confirmed that Bramblebrook House will close.
The same councillors spent two years opposing plans by the previous Labour-led administration to close Bramblebrook, after it became clear that it was impossible to retain.
In July, last year, the same councillors boasted that they had saved the home, giving false hope to every resident. And as recently as March, this year, Lib Dem cabinet member Ruth Skelton pledged not to shut the home. Now those words have proved to be hollow.
This is utterly shameless. I have no issue with the closure as it’s been clear for some time that the home cannot remain open. But I’m appalled at the opportunist campaign the Lib Dems have run.
They masqueraded as saviours and let the vulnerable residents and their families believe that Bramblebrook was sustainable, when the sad but inevitable truth was that it never was.
The campaign they fought while in opposition has now been shown to be completely without foundation. If they truly felt the home should remain open then that’s what they should have made happen when they won control of the council.
But they’re too weak to do that. Their policies in opposition were based entirely on opportunism, and their policy in control is to unquestionably bow to council officers.
Now they’ve gone too far in proposing to close all the council’s homes because there is an ongoing need for some traditional council run residential care provision.
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
TORIES ARE OBSESSED BY HUNTING
TORY frontbencher, Nick Herbert, recently confirmed that the Tories would offer a free vote on repealing Labour's hunting ban.
The League Against Cruel Sports has responded by writing to Parliamentary Standards Commissioner John Lyon, asking him to look into donations made to Mr Herbert.
According to an article published in the Daily Mail, of seven donations totalling £24,500 to the shadow environment secretary’s office, four came from people and organisations with known links to hunting.
They included £1,500 from hunting outfitter William & Sons, £2,000 from grouse moor owner Michael Cannon, £2,000 from the Altnaharra Estate in Sutherland and £5,000 from Johan Christofferson, former master of the Isle of Wight Hunt.
While Labour is focussing on getting the country out of recession, the Conservatives want to waste parliamentary time bringing back an activity that most of their own voters don’t even support.
The Conservatives’ obsession with bloodsports illustrates their warped sense of priorities and is further evidence that they’re still the same old Tories that forced millions into poverty.
I just don’t understand why any government would think that one of the first things to do after a General Election is repeal the ban on fox hunting.
I’m sure that the vast majority of people, whatever their views are about foxhunting, would agree that with all the challenges in the world at the moment, this is completely wrongheaded.
The League Against Cruel Sports has responded by writing to Parliamentary Standards Commissioner John Lyon, asking him to look into donations made to Mr Herbert.
According to an article published in the Daily Mail, of seven donations totalling £24,500 to the shadow environment secretary’s office, four came from people and organisations with known links to hunting.
They included £1,500 from hunting outfitter William & Sons, £2,000 from grouse moor owner Michael Cannon, £2,000 from the Altnaharra Estate in Sutherland and £5,000 from Johan Christofferson, former master of the Isle of Wight Hunt.
While Labour is focussing on getting the country out of recession, the Conservatives want to waste parliamentary time bringing back an activity that most of their own voters don’t even support.
The Conservatives’ obsession with bloodsports illustrates their warped sense of priorities and is further evidence that they’re still the same old Tories that forced millions into poverty.
I just don’t understand why any government would think that one of the first things to do after a General Election is repeal the ban on fox hunting.
I’m sure that the vast majority of people, whatever their views are about foxhunting, would agree that with all the challenges in the world at the moment, this is completely wrongheaded.
Monday, 26 October 2009
COUNCIL SNUBS CALLS FOR 10% CUT IN CARBON EMISSIONS
The Lib Dem Council leader, Hilary Jones, has been summoned to the Council’s Climate Change Commission to explain why the council hasn’t already signed up to reduce its carbon emissions next year.
And the Derby Climate Change Group has also written to her demanding an explanation.
The Lib Dems’ party conference backed a motion promising that any council run or influenced by the Lib Dems would commit itself to reducing carbon emissions by 10% in 2010.
Speaking at the party's Bournemouth conference, Simon Hughes, the party’s parliamentary energy and climate change spokesman, told delegates that "we cannot start too soon" in reducing emissions.
When Labour ran the council we were working to reduce the council’s carbon emissions by 25% by 2011, but our target has been all but abandoned by this Lib Dem administration.
I had hoped that the commitment by the Lib Dems’ national leadership would have an influence on Derby’s Lib Dems, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears.
In the absence of any leadership from Derby’s hapless Lib Dem councillors, Labour has stepped into the breach to promote this vital campaign.
We will be putting a motion the next full council meeting on November 18 that will seek support for the 10:10 campaign
And the Derby Climate Change Group has also written to her demanding an explanation.
The Lib Dems’ party conference backed a motion promising that any council run or influenced by the Lib Dems would commit itself to reducing carbon emissions by 10% in 2010.
Speaking at the party's Bournemouth conference, Simon Hughes, the party’s parliamentary energy and climate change spokesman, told delegates that "we cannot start too soon" in reducing emissions.
When Labour ran the council we were working to reduce the council’s carbon emissions by 25% by 2011, but our target has been all but abandoned by this Lib Dem administration.
I had hoped that the commitment by the Lib Dems’ national leadership would have an influence on Derby’s Lib Dems, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears.
In the absence of any leadership from Derby’s hapless Lib Dem councillors, Labour has stepped into the breach to promote this vital campaign.
We will be putting a motion the next full council meeting on November 18 that will seek support for the 10:10 campaign
TORIES IN CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL SHOCK
A CONTROVERSIAL film declaring that there is no such thing as climate change has been broadcast in Derby City Council’s Council Chamber at the request of the Conservatives.
The film, branded “dangerous” and “irresponsible”, declares that climate change does not exist and that there is little point in making efforts to reduce carbon emissions.
Other councillors are furious that the transmission has gone ahead and have questioned the Conservatives motives.
Tory Councillor Frank Leeming is promoting the film.
The council’s Tories are supposed to be committed to reducing carbon emissions yet here they are irresponsibly pushing a film which threatens all of that.
It reaffirms my belief that the Conservatives have merely been paying lip service to environmental issues in pushing their new branding as a caring party.
Councillor Leeming has always been a law unto himself but the Tories evidently felt he had the sufficient qualities for their group when they went out of their way to recruit him last year.
Now they’ve given him the biggest vote of confidence they could by giving him the green light to promote a viewpoint, which is at best misguided and at worst completely irresponsible.
The film, branded “dangerous” and “irresponsible”, declares that climate change does not exist and that there is little point in making efforts to reduce carbon emissions.
Other councillors are furious that the transmission has gone ahead and have questioned the Conservatives motives.
Tory Councillor Frank Leeming is promoting the film.
The council’s Tories are supposed to be committed to reducing carbon emissions yet here they are irresponsibly pushing a film which threatens all of that.
It reaffirms my belief that the Conservatives have merely been paying lip service to environmental issues in pushing their new branding as a caring party.
Councillor Leeming has always been a law unto himself but the Tories evidently felt he had the sufficient qualities for their group when they went out of their way to recruit him last year.
Now they’ve given him the biggest vote of confidence they could by giving him the green light to promote a viewpoint, which is at best misguided and at worst completely irresponsible.
LABOUR HAS BEEN TOUGH ON CRIME AND ITS CAUSES
Since Labour came to power in 1997, the government has been tough on crime and the causes of crime.
One of the biggest causes of crime is poverty, and Labour has reduced poverty. The minimum wage, working tax credits, child tax credits and better and affordable childcare have all helped to make a difference, as have the increased employment opportunities and minimum wage.
Education is a key pathway out of poverty and Labour has invested heavily in education by building new schools, employing more teachers and more teaching assistants. This has helped more young people to obtain better qualifications and more people than ever are getting the chance to go to university.
Providing the legal powers and financial support to address crime directly is also essential and Labour’s done just that with more investment in the Police, youth services and drug treatment facilities.
Let’s not forget that crime has actually fallen by a third under Labour. Since 1997, overall crime is down 36%, domestic burglary is down 54%, vehicle related crime is down 57% and violent crime is down 41%.
Furthermore, the DNA database is a vital crime fighting tool that in the last 10 years has identified 390,000 crimes with DNA matches and provided the police with a lead on the possible identity of the offender.
The recent closure of a ‘crack house’ in Normanton, which was reported in the Derby Telegraph on 23 October, is an example of Labour’s policy of being tough on crime.
There is of course still more to do, but Labour’s achievements in tackling crime and its causes, particularly when compared to the dark days under the Conservatives, are pretty amazing.
What we have to do is build on those achievements by continuing to tackle poverty and reduce crime. Both these evils feed off each other and can blight communities.
But make no mistake; a Tory victory in the next general election would almost certainly see these twin evils growing again.
One of the biggest causes of crime is poverty, and Labour has reduced poverty. The minimum wage, working tax credits, child tax credits and better and affordable childcare have all helped to make a difference, as have the increased employment opportunities and minimum wage.
Education is a key pathway out of poverty and Labour has invested heavily in education by building new schools, employing more teachers and more teaching assistants. This has helped more young people to obtain better qualifications and more people than ever are getting the chance to go to university.
Providing the legal powers and financial support to address crime directly is also essential and Labour’s done just that with more investment in the Police, youth services and drug treatment facilities.
Let’s not forget that crime has actually fallen by a third under Labour. Since 1997, overall crime is down 36%, domestic burglary is down 54%, vehicle related crime is down 57% and violent crime is down 41%.
Furthermore, the DNA database is a vital crime fighting tool that in the last 10 years has identified 390,000 crimes with DNA matches and provided the police with a lead on the possible identity of the offender.
The recent closure of a ‘crack house’ in Normanton, which was reported in the Derby Telegraph on 23 October, is an example of Labour’s policy of being tough on crime.
There is of course still more to do, but Labour’s achievements in tackling crime and its causes, particularly when compared to the dark days under the Conservatives, are pretty amazing.
What we have to do is build on those achievements by continuing to tackle poverty and reduce crime. Both these evils feed off each other and can blight communities.
But make no mistake; a Tory victory in the next general election would almost certainly see these twin evils growing again.
Saturday, 10 October 2009
Derby Tories Scraping The Barrel
CONSERVATIVE attempts to portray themselves as a party that’s ready to run the city council in Derby has been rather undone.
It seems Derby’s Tories can’t even find enough people from within their own ranks to contest the 17 seats up for grabs in next year’s local elections in Derby.
To enable them to field a full slate they’ve had to resort to running an event at the Council House to sign up wanabee councillors without any political affinity whatsoever.
It’s a damning indictment of the Tory group’s ability to attract Derby people to join their cause and puts some perspective on the apparent 'resurgence' in popularity of the Tories.
Of course Derby’s Tory group has already demonstrated its willingness to take anybody into their party to artificially swell their numbers.
In the last few years they’ve welcomed five disgruntled defectors from other political parties that electors had voted in believing they represented contrary views to the Conservative Party.
Among the defectors are the Conservative Mayor, Sean Marshall, who was originally elected as a Lib Dem, and the Tory shadow cabinet member Amar Nath, who won his current Normanton seat as a Labour member.
Tory backbencher Frank Leeming has switched allegiance five times since he first joined the council, while Phil Ingall, also elected for Labour, switched to the Conservatives in 2008.
The shenanigans of Derby’s Conservative Party is making a mockery of local democracy and this latest episode is yet another example of their unsuitability for public office
It seems Derby’s Tories can’t even find enough people from within their own ranks to contest the 17 seats up for grabs in next year’s local elections in Derby.
To enable them to field a full slate they’ve had to resort to running an event at the Council House to sign up wanabee councillors without any political affinity whatsoever.
It’s a damning indictment of the Tory group’s ability to attract Derby people to join their cause and puts some perspective on the apparent 'resurgence' in popularity of the Tories.
Of course Derby’s Tory group has already demonstrated its willingness to take anybody into their party to artificially swell their numbers.
In the last few years they’ve welcomed five disgruntled defectors from other political parties that electors had voted in believing they represented contrary views to the Conservative Party.
Among the defectors are the Conservative Mayor, Sean Marshall, who was originally elected as a Lib Dem, and the Tory shadow cabinet member Amar Nath, who won his current Normanton seat as a Labour member.
Tory backbencher Frank Leeming has switched allegiance five times since he first joined the council, while Phil Ingall, also elected for Labour, switched to the Conservatives in 2008.
The shenanigans of Derby’s Conservative Party is making a mockery of local democracy and this latest episode is yet another example of their unsuitability for public office
Sunday, 6 September 2009
RURAL THUGS GET KILLING AGAIN
On Tuesday, the partridge shooting season began. The birds, literally millions of them, have been bred and reared as live targets for sport.
One of the things that is little mentioned about shooting at live birds for sport is the level of cruelty involved. The flying birds are shot at with shotgun pellets, which often do not kill outright. The pellets can disable with the bird then crashing to the ground, sometimes to be killed on impact, sometimes unable to fly and seeking to find cover. Other times the birds are only slightly wounded and glide or fly on only to come to grief far away from the shoot.
At a typical shoot there are twice as many shots fired as there are birds downed. This is not precision humane killing, it is haphazard wounding and winging for sport, with a pretty ramshackle and only partial clean up operation using gun dogs to follow. The image that the shooting industry tries to present – of expert marksmen and women killing birds humanly for the pot – is just not borne out by the facts.
The fact that the vast majority of those who shoot to kill for sport are men over the age of forty should not be ignored. Shooting as a sport appears to appeal to men as some sort of power fantasy: killing as an exercise in dominance. The chance to exercise the power of life and death, the claim to be a proficient killer and the chance to demonstrate prowess as a hunter killer, seems to strike a machismic chord in those who shoot for sport. In a civilised society we really ought to question the sense in allowing and/or facilitating the use of guns as a power fantasy.
As a society we send very conflicting messages when on the one hand we criminalise violence to and the unnecessary killing of domestic and farmed animals while at the same time we allow the killing of wild animals with guns for sport. We send out equally confusing messages when we deplore gun culture amongst young criminals, but at the same time license children and adults to use shotguns and firearms to kill wild animals for sport.
It is still legal to hold a firearm certificate in the UK for an elephant gun. Why on earth do we need to allow people to acquire huge and lethal firearms that cannot possibly be needed in the UK? The woolly mammoths died out a long time ago, wild rhinos no longer roam here, yet there are people in the UK with firearms allegedly needed to kill animals that are on the endangered species lists and/or extinct.
There is no doubt that, to roughly quote Chairman Mao, power comes from the barrel of a gun. We have to ask ourselves if we want an armed citizenry, as there is in the USA and elsewhere, bearing arms and indulging in power and dominion fantasies using their firearms?
There is plenty of evidence to support the Socratic dictum that vice harms the doer. Rousseau said that the act of killing coarsens the sensibilities of the killer. The concern for life is diminished by killing the duty of care, which is put to one side in pursuit of an unnecessary indulgence for sport. Do we really want this? I think not.
Predictably this week when a coroner recommended, and the BMA agreed, that doctors should note on their files if a patient had applied for or held a shotgun or firearm, the shooters opposed the idea.
The supporters of shooting oppose any medical revocation of firearms. Doctors already as a matter of routine report to the authorities if they believe someone is no longer fit to drive a car; the same process should apply to firearms. It is grossly irresponsible that the shooting industry does not to support the coroner’s recommendation which followed an inquest on a person who having expressed suicidal tendencies to his doctor then shot and killed his wife and child before killing himself.
To my mind anyone who causes unnecessary suffering is an abuser. When that unnecessary suffering is explained as being a sport and the suffering of the target animals is as naught, I think that is abuse. People have a responsibility for the welfare of the animals that they interact with. To chase, to harry, to injure and to kill for sport is an abuse of that responsibility because it is deliberately not being done humanely.
If the intention of the bloodsports enthusiast was to kill only when necessary and then humanely, they would not do what they do. The shoots would be closed down, the reared pheasants and partridges would be killed humanely and not released into the countryside, the hunted animals would not be chased by packs of dogs and the terriermen would not be using their dogs to bait foxes below ground. Bloodsports by self definition are cruel sports; name it and shame it is my advice.
One of the things that is little mentioned about shooting at live birds for sport is the level of cruelty involved. The flying birds are shot at with shotgun pellets, which often do not kill outright. The pellets can disable with the bird then crashing to the ground, sometimes to be killed on impact, sometimes unable to fly and seeking to find cover. Other times the birds are only slightly wounded and glide or fly on only to come to grief far away from the shoot.
At a typical shoot there are twice as many shots fired as there are birds downed. This is not precision humane killing, it is haphazard wounding and winging for sport, with a pretty ramshackle and only partial clean up operation using gun dogs to follow. The image that the shooting industry tries to present – of expert marksmen and women killing birds humanly for the pot – is just not borne out by the facts.
The fact that the vast majority of those who shoot to kill for sport are men over the age of forty should not be ignored. Shooting as a sport appears to appeal to men as some sort of power fantasy: killing as an exercise in dominance. The chance to exercise the power of life and death, the claim to be a proficient killer and the chance to demonstrate prowess as a hunter killer, seems to strike a machismic chord in those who shoot for sport. In a civilised society we really ought to question the sense in allowing and/or facilitating the use of guns as a power fantasy.
As a society we send very conflicting messages when on the one hand we criminalise violence to and the unnecessary killing of domestic and farmed animals while at the same time we allow the killing of wild animals with guns for sport. We send out equally confusing messages when we deplore gun culture amongst young criminals, but at the same time license children and adults to use shotguns and firearms to kill wild animals for sport.
It is still legal to hold a firearm certificate in the UK for an elephant gun. Why on earth do we need to allow people to acquire huge and lethal firearms that cannot possibly be needed in the UK? The woolly mammoths died out a long time ago, wild rhinos no longer roam here, yet there are people in the UK with firearms allegedly needed to kill animals that are on the endangered species lists and/or extinct.
There is no doubt that, to roughly quote Chairman Mao, power comes from the barrel of a gun. We have to ask ourselves if we want an armed citizenry, as there is in the USA and elsewhere, bearing arms and indulging in power and dominion fantasies using their firearms?
There is plenty of evidence to support the Socratic dictum that vice harms the doer. Rousseau said that the act of killing coarsens the sensibilities of the killer. The concern for life is diminished by killing the duty of care, which is put to one side in pursuit of an unnecessary indulgence for sport. Do we really want this? I think not.
Predictably this week when a coroner recommended, and the BMA agreed, that doctors should note on their files if a patient had applied for or held a shotgun or firearm, the shooters opposed the idea.
The supporters of shooting oppose any medical revocation of firearms. Doctors already as a matter of routine report to the authorities if they believe someone is no longer fit to drive a car; the same process should apply to firearms. It is grossly irresponsible that the shooting industry does not to support the coroner’s recommendation which followed an inquest on a person who having expressed suicidal tendencies to his doctor then shot and killed his wife and child before killing himself.
To my mind anyone who causes unnecessary suffering is an abuser. When that unnecessary suffering is explained as being a sport and the suffering of the target animals is as naught, I think that is abuse. People have a responsibility for the welfare of the animals that they interact with. To chase, to harry, to injure and to kill for sport is an abuse of that responsibility because it is deliberately not being done humanely.
If the intention of the bloodsports enthusiast was to kill only when necessary and then humanely, they would not do what they do. The shoots would be closed down, the reared pheasants and partridges would be killed humanely and not released into the countryside, the hunted animals would not be chased by packs of dogs and the terriermen would not be using their dogs to bait foxes below ground. Bloodsports by self definition are cruel sports; name it and shame it is my advice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
