Category Archives: Politics

May 15, 2013 · 10:50 am

Austerity? Not for Conservative and Labour donors!

The Electoral Commission has today released figures on donations to political parties in the UK for the first 3 months of 2013. The figures show that a total of £9 million was donated to political parties  in this period – that is over £3 million a month! Austerity?

Not for those playing politics.

Inevitably the Labour Party and the Conservatives raked in the biggest amounts of donations collecting over £7 million. The Liberal Democrats by their own standards also took a decent amount collecting just over £800,000.

The party press office proudly tweeted:

The full break down of party donations look likes this:

Party Cash Non-cash Other Total
Amount (£) No. Amount (£) No. Amount (£) No. Amount (£) No.
British National Party 32,000 1 0 0 0 0 32,000 1
Conservative and Unionist Party 3,447,300 106 179,877 26 35,847 4 3,663,024 136
Co-operative Party 411,723 4 1,250 1 0 0 412,973 5
Democracy 2015 8,055 1 0 0 0 0 8,055 1
Green Party 23,110 6 0 0 0 0 23,110 8
Labour Party 1,836,105 96 1,845,382 25 0 0 3,681,486 121
Liberal Democrats 792,454 64 50,256 13 0 0 842,710 77
Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales  18,511.34 1 0  0  0  0  18,511  1
Scottish National Party (SNP) 10,000 1 0 0 0 0 10,000 1
The Socialist Party of Great Britain 295,775 1 0 0 0 0 295,775 0
UK Independence Party (UK I P) 47,650 9 26,500 4 0 0 74,150 13
Total 6,922,683 290 2,103,264 69 35,847 4 9,061,794 363


So who has this sort of money to splash around in times of austerity? 

Labour received both the largest individual donation from Mr John Mills (who is interestingly also the Chair of Labour campaign group calling for a referendum on EU membership). Labour also received a neat £1.3 million from Trade Unions, of which over £750,000 came from UNITE.

Money well spent for the union members?

The Tories however seem to rely more on people who can afford big donations of £500,000 each.

The top ten donors to all parties though were:

Donor name Total amount (£) Recipient
1 Mr John Mills 1,647,500 Labour Party
2 Unite the Union 766,963 Labour Party
3 Mr Michael Davis 500,000 Conservative and Unionist Party
4 Ms May Makhzoumi 500,000 Conservative and Unionist Party
5 The Co-operative Group (CWS) Ltd 412,973 Co-operative Party
6 Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers 314,388 Labour Party
7 Mr Stanley Robert Parker 295,775 The Socialist Party of Great Britain
8 Mr James R Lupton 255,000 Conservative and Unionist Party
9 Mr Michael S Farmer 254,334 Conservative and Unionist Party
10 Mr Graham R Hunnable 200,000 Liberal Democrats


On the other end of the scale, The Green Party took over £23,000 from individual donations. Pretty small you think? Well, not in comparison to £10,000 that the SNP received.

Austerity…certainly not for Conservative and Labour donors!

Full information about party funding can be found here.

About these ads

Leave a Comment

Filed under Economics, Politics

Tagged as , , , , ,

May 8, 2013 · 10:39 am

Peter Lawrence argues ‘Every Vote Counts’

This is a guest post by Peter Lawrence. Peter has over 20 years of experience in local government and is a passionate advocate for electoral reform.

The UK’s First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system is a ‘winner takes all’ process. Any political party with a sizeable support base spread evenly across the country will find it impossible to make proportionate gains in Westminster.

As a result we see constant bickering about constituency boundaries while all the three main political parties focus on marginal constituencies and ‘parachute-in’ their preferred candidates come election time. History tells us that some constituencies would elect a seaside donkey if the beast was the Prospective Parliamentary Candidate (PPC) for a locally dominant political party.

Despite all this, the UK rejected electoral reform in the 2011 Alternative Vote referendum by a margin of 2:1. There are many reasons for this rejection but I suspect the British people had no appetite for any electoral system where the least despised (as opposed to the most popular) candidate gets elected.

Also the many flavours of Proportional Representation (PR) on offer (see Plurality Voting System) are more likely to confuse rather than enthuse voters. Indeed, there is a widespread view that PR results in ineffective governance with minor parties holding the casting vote.

Scrapping constituencies altogether and instead having a national tally of votes with seats allocated to parties on their portion of that total at first seems the fairest approach. However, this favours large ‘lowest common denominator’ national parties, discourages new parties and robs the electorate of any ‘local voice’ e.g. voting against a hospital closure.

The Additional Member System (AMS) used in Scotland and Wales offers a hybrid solution by running FPTP locally and PR for new regional constituencies. However this both fails to address the shortcomings of FPTP and PR, and introduces the nebulous concept of regional constituencies.

So what’s my suggestion? Every Vote Counts (EVC).

EVC is a low-cost, minimal change solution that favours no political party. As now voters cast one vote for the candidate of their choice with no change to existing constituencies or their boundaries.

EVC addresses the shortcomings of FPTP by injecting an element of ‘localism’ into the process, while at the same time allocating the total vote such that every national party gets something like the number of MPs justified by its share of the vote.

Put simply EVC changes how the votes cast are accounted for.

Under EVC, PPCs must register as either:

1)    Local Candidate (LC) or

2)  National Candidate (NC)

… a free choice, whether or not the candidate belongs to any political party.

Political parties must register as a National Party (NP) in order to receive their portion of the national tally of votes.

Local Candidates have votes cast in their favour recognised only at constituency level. If they obtain the most votes they become MP for that constituency, and if not they are thereafter discounted.

National Candidates have votes cast in their favour recorded as part of their party’s national tally. If they obtain the most votes in a constituency their party can propose that the candidate becomes MP for that constituency. However the final outcome will be decided by the Allocation of Parliamentary Seats for National Parties process explained below.

Allocation of Parliamentary Seats for National Parties

Seats for National Parties will be allocated using the following incremental process: -

  1. Round 1 – National Parties will be allocated as many seats as their share of the national total justifies. In most cases constituencies will gain the National Candidate who won locally. However a low national tally could result in a National Party failing to be awarded all the seats that under FPTP they would have secured by having the greatest number of votes cast locally.
  2. Round 2 – Seats that remain vacant after Round 1 will be allocated to the parties whose share of the national tally justifies that allocation. Inevitably this will result in some seats being allocated to a party who did not poll the most votes locally in certain constituencies. In this way EVC compensates for demographic inconsistencies where the number of seats a party gains is disproportionate to their share of total votes cast.

The above is a thumbnail sketch. EVC is not a panacea and has a somewhat perverse element i.e. Round 2, where a particular constituency may be allocated an MP who did not gain the most votes locally but whose party gained a larger share of the national vote.

These are my thoughts and I would welcome yours. I hope though that this article will spark some life back into the electoral reform debate.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Politics

Tagged as , ,

May 6, 2013 · 10:10 am

The State of Play: Education in Uganda

This is a guest post by Anya Whiteside who is the Education Advocacy Officer at the Forum for Education NGOs in Uganda (FENU).  She is also my partner and her blog can be found  here. 

I ask students what they think about their education in a learners workshopBack in 1997 Uganda was proud to lead the way in the provision of universal primary education. Enrollment boomed from just 2.5 to 8.8 million and this was seen by many as a major success.

Despite this seemingly rosy picture, Uganda is a clear example of how focus on access to education alone is not the be all and end all and is not the same as a good education.

It is generally recognised that in Uganda education is in crisis, a crisis that needs urgent action.

Although enrollment has remained high the drop-out rates in Uganda are also high. Uganda’s completion rates in primary education are only 25%. This is compared to 84% in Kenya, 81% in Tanzania and 74% in Rwanda.

Even for the minority of children who stay in school in Uganda the picture is not much better. A report recently released by the government confirms what teachers, politicians, parents and children already know; that even children who stay in school are not learning.

The NAPE report states that for P6 pupils who are at the end of primary school, only 45% of them have reached proficiency in numeracy and only 41% in literacy. As the report starkly puts it ‘less than a half of the P6 pupils have mastered most of the competencies in the P6 curriculum’.

Most worrying of all the results show that education results aren’t improving, and are worse than the results in 2009.

There is not doubt that Ugandan education faces many challenges. Uganda has the second youngest population in the world with 55% of the population under 18 years. When universal primary education was introduced children flooded in to access ‘free’ education with schools and teachers overwhelmed. There are no-where near enough teachers, classrooms, books or sanitation facilities to teach all these children.

It is not uncommon to have teachers attempting to teach classes of over 100 and children taking it in turns to use a pencil. Children often come to school without lunch and so are sat all afternoon hungrily waiting for the end of the day.

But political will is also an important element in this. The percentage share of the Uganda national budget dedicated to education has fallen from 17% in 2007/8 to 15% for 2013/14.

This situation is likely to only get worse after aid donors pulled out after allegations of corruption by the prime ministers office, leaving sizable holes in the education budget.

Funding to government primary schools comes in the form of a grant given per child, per year to each school. On average this is 5,000 Ush (about £1.25) per child per year, so it is unsurprising schools charge parents significant, often unaffordable extras for books and uniforms.

Unlike other countries, where even if they are not paid enough teachers are afforded at least some degree of respect in the local community, in Uganda teachers are considered socially at the bottom of the pile. In government primary schools teachers are paid an average of 260,000Ush a term (£65 a term).

To give you some context, VSO gives me a stipend of 895,000Ush (£223) a month which is meant to cover my basic living costs, excluding accommodation. So you can see that being a teacher is not exactly economically desirable.

When you add to that the appalling delays that teachers experience, waiting months for their salaries due to inefficiencies, it is unsurprising that teachers often don’t turn up or have additional jobs on the side.

Teachers are also not given good training and the style of teaching is extremely reliant on teaching by rote. A colleague of mine told me how she sat in on a teacher training course where the lecturer, with no irony, started by saying ‘in teaching the most important thing is to be interactive and not just talk at students’ and then proceeded to talk at the teachers for several hours.

Teachers are rarely, if ever, inspected and there is little support or ongoing training. On top of this they are blamed consistently for the poor state of education in Uganda – no wonder no one wants to be a teacher!

So is there any hope for education in Uganda?

I would argue that there is, based on all the people I have met who are dedicated to improving education. Everyone knows what the problems in education are and the buzz-word at the moment is ‘quality’ education.

The organisation I work for (FENU) helped to set up the new ‘Parliamentary forum on quality education’. A few weeks ago FENU coordinated the first ever ‘Quality Public Education Week’ which saw Anglican, Catholic and Islamic leaders (70% of schools are linked to religious institutions) come together with trade unionists and politicians. This focus on quality is important, especially as it moves away from only focusing on getting more children into school and also looks at the education those children are receiving.

There are so many different challenges to education here, and I haven’t even touched on child labour, gender inequalities, capital punishment, secondary schooling or vocational training.

Nonetheless there are inspiring people working for change, and no end to the children keen to learn if they are only given the opportunity to do so.

1 Comment

Filed under Politics, Social comment, Uganda

Tagged as , , , ,

May 5, 2013 · 10:03 am

UKIP’s glass ceiling

As the UKIP media frenzy spirals further out of control, I take a quick look at why UKIP is doomed for political failure. 

Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP, has declared that his party’s recent local election results represent the “first substantial step towards a party that can credibly win seats at Westminster.”

Sadly, for UKIP at least, this seems as far from realty as UKIP’s policies. Let me explain why

UKIP are edging closer and closer to a glass ceiling, a point at which the party in its current form cannot pass. The reasons for this are numerous but let me pick out two, starting with the most obvious –their policies.

UKIP stands alongside a set of policies that are described in the Independent as ‘a wet-dream’ for the far-right. They call for a tax-cut for the wealthiest while suggesting lower earners should pay more income tax (through a flat-rate 31% income tax), they want to abolish national insurance, and of course they think that climate change, well, doesn’t exist!

Liberal Democrat blogger Mark Pack put’s it less favourably summarizing their policy as, “a 1950s-style society of white men at work, white women at home and gays in the closet.”

Not only are these sorts of policies repulsive to protest voters on the centre-left but they are also far beyond what most on the right would call for.

When it comes to the crunch time of 2015, few will actually want UKIP in parliament. In Lab/Con marginals few Tory voters will risk letting Labour in through the back door.

Which leads me to my second point – the electoral system.

Mike Smithson over at Political Betting has today blogged saying, “the harsh fact for Ukip [is] that by having a vote that’s more evenly spread across the country then they would not win any MPs.” His comments are based on the well respected Rallings and Thrasher projection.

We have seen time and time again small parties failing to grasp the political nettle because of our electoral system. The SDP stand as good example who at their peak polled support over 50% and we all know how that ended.

The contemporary Green Party serve as another illustration. Polls suggest that Green policies are more popular than any other party and yet in FPTP elections they have, with only the odd exception that I will come on to,  consistently failed to break-through.

Popularity does not equal success in the broken politics of the UK.

However, the Greens actually serve to illustrate another lesson for UKIP – a lesson that I doubt they will listen to. In 2010 the Greens threw their energy, volunteer base and limited money at Brighton to ensure Caroline Lucas was elected. They succeeded, but at a price. They struggled in all of their other target seats.

What was impressive about the Greens in this sense is that they did what they could within a broken system; they consolidated their efforts into one seat. Will UKIP follow this lead?

As I write, UKIP show no signs taking on such a strategy but instead they semm to be continuing their world domination rhetoric fueled by the media frenzy that is following them.

Even if UKIP do follow the Greens lead, what one seat will they focus on? Unlike the Greens (who have been building their support in Brighton for the last 15 years) UKIP do not have any natural constituency home.

A word of warning to finish on though, UKIP have not yet reached their glass ceiling. In 2014 we have elections for the European Parliament and more local elections. There are many reasons to think that UKIP stands to do very well in these elections.

Equally, this last weekend William Hill was offering odds of 5/1 on UKIP winning a by-election before the general election takes place.

UKIP are a doomed political force destined for the political obscurities of Hamilton after dinner party speeches. The question that concerns us all though is how damage they will reap before they hit their glass ceiling and start their inevitable demise?

Leave a Comment

Filed under EU politics, Far-right politics, Politics

Tagged as , , ,

May 4, 2013 · 8:38 am

BNP opt for sex over elections in battle for racial purity

The British National Party (BNP) has lost all three seats they were looking to defend in the 2013 local elections. This includes Burnley which was the nearest thing to a safe seat the party had.

In light of this electoral battering the party sent out this bizarre message to members suggesting “that BNP members and nationalists across the schools of nationalism engage in making babies.”

You can’t make this up.

In an effort to “rebuild the ethnic British race” they are calling for a two-fold strategy of increased white European immigration combined with boosting the ‘nationalist’ reproduction rate.

As far as political strategies go – this is extraordinary even by BNP standards.

One thinks that there might be a bit of confusion in BNP HQ at the moment.

 

3 Comments

Filed under Far-right politics, Politics

Tagged as ,

May 3, 2013 · 10:32 am

An initial green reflection on the local elections

In one sense the Greens can walk away from these last local elections pleased. At the time of writing they had a steady net increase in councillors, including high profile seats such as the leader of Warwickshire’s Conservative group. But on the other hand they have once again failed to make significant gains despite so many circumstances falling in their favour.

Let us start with the positive though.

In the words of the party:

This is an achievement and should be celebrated. Once again, Greens are net winners at an election.

Equally, despite the current UKIP media hysteria, the Greens (at the time of writing) still have considerably more elected councillors than UKIP.

As Symon Hill tweeted earlier:

But hey, I guess slow and steady progess doesn’t make the headlines.

Just as this ‘slow and steady approach’ stands as a credit to the Greens though, so it also poses their biggest problem. In my home shire, Stroud (traditionally a Green epicentre) the Greens celebrated holding their one county council seat.

But in the election as a whole they saw just a 0.3% increase in the vote.

Something local Labour activists were more than happy to quickly point out:

Natalie Bennett, the Green Party leader, knows this to be a problem. During her recent leadership campaign she stated:

“A few new councillors every year may be better than moving backwards, but because we gear the party towards these modest increases we are deliberately limiting ourselves. Many party members are working extremely hard, but there’s a lack of clear national direction often leaving local party activists feeling isolated.”

In the context of a further Lib Dem and Conservative collapse (provisional figures suggest that both have dropped at least 8 points even in traditional safe areas) these modest gains have to be understood as a disappointment for the Greens.

I hope that Natalie has the confidence to welcome the few gains, congratulate those who have worked so hard but then to call these elections as they are – an overall disappointment for the Greens.

3 Comments

Filed under Politics

Tagged as , ,

April 26, 2013 · 2:27 pm

Changes to legal aid amount to a ‘tax on your innocence’

This is a guest post by Dan Bunting. Dan is a lawyer who blogs at the UK Criminal Law Blog.

A quick game for you, which of the following is not true?

  • The police do not always get it 100% right.
  • The Crown Prosecution Service does not always act with wisdom and common sense.
  • All lawyers are fat-cats, who milk the extremely generous legal aid system.

The last one is of course not true, but it is what the current government  would like you to believe. Why? In order that it may decimate the criminal justice system without you so much as murmuring.

What is this about?

This post is about the Government’s current consultation on ‘reforming’ legal aid. The proposal is to introduce Price Competitive Tendering (PCT) (also known as Best Value Tendering (BVT)). As you know, there is a lot of cost-cutting happening in Government at the moment. Efforts are being made to save money where ever possible and the legal profession is certainly no exception.

What is legal aid?

Legal aid is basically state-funded representation. Where a person needs legal advice and representation, the state sets aside a pot of money to pay the bills. Not all areas of law are eligible for legal aid however. We will, as you would expect, focus purely on crime.

What is the current situation?

At the moment, legal aid is currently available to anyone that is arrested and charged with a criminal offence that is heard in the Crown Court. This means that you can go to any solicitors firm with a legal aid contract who will represent you (an overview can be found here). Depending on your earnings, you may have to make a contribution (that will be capped) which will be returned to you if you win.

What are the Government planning?

In short, a “one size fits all, pile ‘em high” legal aid system. The aim is to reduce the fees by at least 20%.

Currently, there are about 1,600 firms doing criminal work. Some are large, covering huge areas of the country, some are small, providing a more niche service. Currently, every firm is assessed as to whether they provide a proper service and, if they do, they are given a contract.

50% of a firms work will be ‘own client’, i.e., repeat business. If they do not give a proper service, they won’t get people coming back to them and they won’t be able to survive financially. Market forces, it’s as simple as that.

Under the new plans, you will have no say in which lawyer you get. The government, (the same government that is prosecuting you as the CPS), will tell you which lawyer you’re getting. If you have a regular lawyer, or someone who
comes highly recommended, well, tough. Client choice is out of the window.

Also, the fees paid to lawyers are being ‘harmonised’. What that means is that, for almost all cases, the amount that the solicitors are paid will be fixed, regardless of how much or how little work is involved.

There are many problems with what the government is planning, but we’ll just be looking at these two.

Who will be eligible for legal aid under the new proposals?

If you have a disposable income of over £36,500, there will be no legal aid for you, you will to pay privately. This is whether you’re caught with a spliff or caught up in a pub fight which ends up in a trial that lasts weeks. Paying for those lawyers privately won’t be cheap and, even if the jury believe you are innocent, you won’t get your money back (other than at the legal aid rates which will be far less than you’ve forked out) Yes, that’s right, you’ll have to pay for the privilege of a prosecution against you even if you are found innocent. A tax on your innocence, if you like.

What will the effect be?

The aim is that the small firms are pushed out (they say it is ‘inefficient’ to deal with many small firms) and big companies take over – so look forward to Tesco Law, Stobart Barristers (yes, the trucking company) and G4S (the same G4S that stuffed up the security at the olympics).

Even if you’re eligible, there remains the question of what sort of service will you get. How will you know that the lawyer you’ve been given is any good? Under the proposed scheme, you might strike lucky, and get someone who stayed
in the game through duty and a love of the job.

Or, you might end up with the short straw – someone who works at the legal equivalent of a sausage factory, who excels turning around the files on his/her desk quickly while maximising profit. Sure, that file might be your life, but to the sausage factory lawyer, you’re a bit of grist in the mill of meeting a target. The proposed system has a lack of quality built into it, it’s evolution in reverse, the worst lawyers survive.

Then there is the incentive for ‘persuading’ you to pleading guilty.

So, you’re innocent, and you want a lawyer who will fight your corner for you? Ask yourself this – which is more
work:

  1. flicking through the papers on the train on the way to court and telling you to plead guilty or,
  2. preparing a case for a trial – speaking to you on several occasions, tracking down your witnesses, speaking to them and making sure that they come to court, chasing down the police and prosecution to give over all the
    material they have, which will often involve going to Court to force them two or three times, going through all of the witness statements with a fine toothcomb, looking for that one point that may ‘crack’ the case and then being in Court for the first two days of the trial?

It’s a no brainer. Under the new scheme your solicitor (who prepares the case) and advocate (who goes to court and presents your case to the jury) will get paid exactly the same in both those scenarios above.

Even if you withstand the pressure of ‘persuasion’ and insist on having a trial, do you think that the sausage factory lawyer will prepare a case that effectively he/she is not getting paid for as thoroughly as you would hope? Don’t count on it.

So it is about money?

We are not saying that any lawyer is going to set out to do a bad job or deliberately put money over service, but actions  have consequences if you took 30% off the NHS budget tomorrow then, with the best will in the world, you can’t expect the same level of service. Individual doctors and nurses will still go on doing the best they can but no-one would believe that the care that they got would be the same as before.

This isn’t a case of lawyers ‘doing you over’ if they are paid badly. The problem is that there are competing interests. When a firm, because of the 20% (minimum) cut in fees, has to perform as much work as it possibly can in order to stay afloat, and the fees are the same for a long trial or a quick guilty plea, then there is a conflict. One might question whether when faced with a decision which has an impact upon the financial health of their firm, a Tesco Law lawyer can truly be independent. You might be lucky, but do you want to take that risk?

Why should I be bothered?

You may not feel too sorry for lawyers, or you may think that this won’t affect you, but you’d be wrong. Anyone can be the subject of a false allegation or even in the heat of the moment just do something the law declares is wrong.

This isn’t about fee cuts to lawyers. Although criminal lawyers do a get a raw deal in the press in relation to the perception of how much money they earn and how they ‘milk’ the legal aid system, these concerns are about quality.

One day, you might need a legal aid lawyer, and even if you are fortunate enough to qualify for legal aid, there is no guarantee that the lawyer will be acting in your best interests alone. They may well just have an eye on the clock and their quarterly targets.

What can I do about it?

If you’re not happy about it, sign the petition to force a debate in the House of Commons about it.

A campaign group, No To PCT, has been set up. You can find them on twitter and facebook. Also, you can respond to the consultation on an easy online survey.

1 Comment

Filed under Economics, Politics

Tagged as , , ,

April 21, 2013 · 2:45 pm

Artist Richard Woods is “unashamed to be political”

This interview was originally printed in New Europe.


Richard Woods describes himself as “more social commentator than artist” and has been compared to the likes of Peter Howson. Woods is famed for his grotesque caricatures and macabre take on places, politics and people as he explores the “absurdity of human existence”. On the back of another critically acclaimed exhibition at the Garden Gallery in the UK, Steve Hynd met up with Woods to find out what drives the painter behind the canvas. 

Can you tell us a bit about your background – where did you grow up  and where did you study?

I was born in Harrogate, but moved with my family to Cheltenham when I was seven. My parents would often take me abroad, so from a young age I had already seen a lot of the world. As an only child I had a lot of time on my hands and spent most of my time drawing and watching cartoons, leading to an extremely active imagination.

Is there any one person that inspires you?

The artist Peter Howson has been the biggest inspiration on me. He’s the official war artist for Bosnia. I remember going to Art College aware of the fact I wanted to paint people but was unsure of how I wanted to do it. When a tutor showed me Howson’s work for the first time I was blown away. That’s when I knew the type of artwork I wanted to make -Distorted characters and stories which are rooted to real issues within society. All of a sudden I felt I had a real sense of purpose, that I was doing something greater than just painting a picture. Perhaps that sounds a bit egotistical, but I don’t really mind that to be honest.

Would you describe your art as political?

Yes certainly. When I first began creating social commentaries I was really focusing on the darkest aspects of the world. I was tackling the ugliest problems in society head on with huge dark boldly painted canvases.

But I was young and full of enthusiasm then, I somewhat reckless with my choices. I soon realised what I was painting could alienate some people more than inspire them – although all those early paintings are now in private collections. I wanted people to reflect on my art but also to enjoy my work visually. I wanted people to be inspired to also try and fix the problems I paint about

Are you an artist first, social commentator second, or vice-versa?

I think at one point I was more social commentator than artist, but over the past couple of years I would say I’m more of a visual artist.

Most of my imagery begins with the idea or the inspiration which can be a news headline or something as simple as a personal experience. That’s the foundations of a work before I indulge my imagination and build up a composition. As an artist my experiences and surroundings mould my perspectives on life. Artists create work in response to these whether consciously or not.

Is there a message or ethos behind your art? If so, is it important to you that people understand that message?

Yes I would like them to but at the same time I’m just like anyone else, I need to make a living and I want people to want to hang my pictures on their walls.

Visual art is essentially about creating something unique and aesthetic that visually people can enjoy. I am always trying new things out. At my recent solo show in Cheltenham I had quite a diverse exhibition to show people what I can do with a paintbrush. Quite often artists develop a comfort zone (including myself) which is actually quite anti-creative. To find true originality you need to experiment.

I have even been painting landscapes outdoors recently. I know, a bit of a cliché.

How have the UK’s coalition years affected your art?

The coalition creates a lot of interesting imagery. I did one painting of Cameron and Clegg titled “Cutting Corners,” which interestingly got a lot of attention in Scotland. It was sold along with some of Peter Howson’s paintings from The Braewell Galleries. I think people value a visual representation of the political issues that they cannot always articulate themselves.

Your art is often a grotesque reflection on life, does this reflect your personal take on life?

It’s definitely how I view the world. I always loved looking at the German expressionist paintings, like Otto Dix and Max Beckman. They were so grotesque and surreal yet held so much truth about the world in their content.

I really thrive on making work which has a cause or purpose. With my early work some people seemed a bit shocked by it but for me I didn’t see what was so shocking, it was just normality to me.

In complete contrast my more recent work which has seen huge ice cream cones filled with fluorescent ice cream has been really appealing to people, especially children. Yet they actually represent a number of dark topics including The Fukishima nuclear disaster and the idea of economic meltdown. This is a good dynamic, having people enjoy the visual imagery then afterwards can discuss the politics.

For more information on his art please visit http://www.art-spaces.com/richardwoods/

Leave a Comment

Filed under EU politics, Gloucestershire, Interview, Politics

Tagged as , , , ,

April 17, 2013 · 5:50 am

A response to: “May the wicked scum responsible for bombing the Boston marathon rot in hell”

This a guest post by my very good friend, Mike Assenti.

Yesterday someone I have a great deal of respect for posted the following on Facebook not long after the news broke of the Boston Marathon bombing:

“May the wicked scum responsible for bombing the Boston marathon rot in hell.”

This really pissed me off.

Far be it from me to undermine the serious and tragic nature of this horrific act – having run a couple of half marathons I know very well the fantastic and generous atmosphere of these sporting events, and can think of few times when so many people who have worked so hard to raise money for charity are all gathered in one place. At the time of writing, 3 people have died and over 150 have been injured, many terribly, and I feel nothing but compassion and pity for those affected. However, something about the extremity of the hate in this kneejerk reaction has really gotten under my skin, particularly given my affection for the person concerned. Unfortunately, they are far from alone, and so this blogpost is an attempt to counter the attitudes present in this and many other reactions to these and similar events.

There are a number of issues here, one of which is the general response to atrocities that take place in the West compared with the far more everyday occurrences elsewhere in the world. In the run up to elections this weekend in Iraq, a spate of car bombs have killed dozens (http://goo.gl/22imY), and injured hundreds more, but the mundanity of these events demotes the story way below Boston and Thatcher, and I have no reason to think that it won’t continue to do so.

I can’t remember seeing a single Facebook update from my friends or family on these bombings. To be clear, I am not making any sort of judgment on those people who have not erupted in outpourings of sympathy for those victims in Iraq – I am as guilty as anyone else of allowing the whole event to pass by as another unfortunate background event. Lurking somewhere in the back of my head is the Scroobius Pip lyric from ‘Thou Shalt Always Kill’ (http://goo.gl/JFGV)

“Thou shalt give equal worth to tragedies that occur in non-English speaking countries, as to those that occur in English speaking countries”.

Another issue is the condemnation of this attack when considered next to other, ongoing killings, such as continuing US drone strikes. This is summarised, amongst other related issues, far more eloquently by Glenn Greenwald in his first point from this article: http://goo.gl/wKgbK. He writes,

…”it was really hard not to find oneself wishing that just a fraction of that compassion and anger be devoted to attacks that the US perpetrates rather than suffers. These are exactly the kinds of horrific, civilian-slaughtering attacks that the US has been bringing to countries in the Muslim world over and over and over again for the last decade, with very little attention paid.”

There are a number of pretty astonishing statistics when you look at the death tolls from US drone strikes, not least the 174 children killed in drone strikes in Pakistan alone over the last decade (http://goo.gl/QU1qi). The quantities of these attacks have ballooned under Obama’s presidency, no doubt devastating countless lives and families, the vast majority of which are civilians caught in the crossfire. Should President Obama be held accountable for these deaths? There’s certainly a strong argument that he should, but until recently the silence on the issue of the very principle of these drone strikes has been deafening.

I think that the most important part of this is the need to refrain from jumping to conclusions before there is sufficient evidence to form an opinion. Already many in the American media have been unable to resist speculating whether this is an Islamic Jihadi attack (http://goo.gl/tVtz6) in the same vein as 9/11, despite there currently being no evidence to support this. Having said that, the sheer lack of evidence so far in this incident means that most have little choice but to remain open minded at this point. We simply do not know who set off these bombs or why they did so.

In Norway in 2011, Anders Breivik set off a car bomb killing 8 people, and shot a further 69 at a youth camp, most of which were teenagers. In response to his ultra-right wing views and apparent lack of remorse during his fair and open trial, the vast majority of Norwegian people displayed astonishing courage and conviction by maintaining their support for the democracy and tolerance to which Breivik was so opposed (http://goo.gl/ZRF1H). They reacted to a terrible tragedy calmly and sensibly, with compassion for the victims and justice for the perpetrator (true justice, not a mob lynching), and in doing so displayed remarkable strength as a society.

Whatever the investigation into these bombings reveals, it is likely that the reasons behind this attack are complex and multi-faceted. Obama’s drone program takes place for a multitude of reasons, many of which would seem reasonable to those of us in the West, but likely less so to the victims of a drone strike.

In my personal opinion, little is gained from the expression of hate by ANY party, whether verbally or through violence. The attack on Boston last weekend was a despicable, tragic, pointless act, and those responsible must face justice in a fair, transparent way with all of the complex evidence present, whoever they are. Similarly, we must try to look through this same prism when considering these other acts around the world, regardless of their frequency, and regardless of who commits such acts. Better still, the people of Norway have demonstrated that it is possible to do so with courage and magnanimity even in the face of great tragedy and loss.

6 Comments

Filed under Far-right politics, Human rights, Middle East, Politics, Social comment

Tagged as , , ,

April 15, 2013 · 2:18 pm

Young people let down again by real-term cut in minimum wage

Young people across Britain have yet again been let down after the government announced that they will face a real terms cut in the minimum wage.

The government have announced a pathetic 4p rise in the basic minimum wage bringing it up to just £3:72 for 16 and 17 year olds.

The ‘rise’ in the minimum wage is well below the 2.7% consumer price inflation rate resulting in a real term cut for some of the poorest and most vulnerable young people across the UK. This blow makes a mockery of the government’s commitment to ‘make work pay‘.

This ‘increase’ also leaves the minimum wage well under the ‘living wage for Londoners’.

The ‘Living Wage’ set at £8:55 for Londoners is worked out on the basic cost of living – over £5 over the current minimum wage for 16 and 17 year olds.

When this government proudly announces it’s ‘increase’ despite the Low Pay Commissions’ recommendations – don’t believe them. This is a real term cut.

The differing levels of the new minimum wage (depending on your age) which come into effect from the 1st October 2013 can be found here. 

1 Comment

Filed under Economics, Politics

Tagged as , ,

April 14, 2013 · 7:06 am

The freedom to insult those in mourning

Liverpool fans hold up a banner during the club's match against ReadingThe Guardian reports that:

“Commander Christine Jones… warned that officers had power under the controversial section 5 of the Public Order Act to step in if non-violent action was the cause of “harassment, alarm or distress” as Thatcher’s coffin makes its way through London to St Paul’s Cathedral.”

So what constitutes causing “harassment, alarm or distress”?

Section 5 of the Public Order Act defines it saying:

“Harassment, alarm or distress. (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he —
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.”

Any thinking person can see problems with this definition. Which is why the word ‘insulting’ will soon be removed from the act altogether. 

Assuming that the Commander was not referring to the concept of being insulted, which will soon cease to be illegal, we can assume she was suggesting that people could be arrested for being ‘threatening or abusive’.

But, she also clearly states that she was referring to those practising ‘non-violent action’. What does she imagine will constitute ‘threatening and abusive’ behaviour that could also be described as ‘non-violent’?

Of course there may be examples of non-violent threatening and abusive behaviour. I disagreed with liberal blogger Sunny Hundal when he argued that the now infamous ‘My Tram Experience’ rant was not threatening or abusive. I think those around her did feel threatened and potentially abused.

Commander Jones’ comments though are in the context of protestors planning to turn their backs on the coffin as it passes and to organise a “right jolly knees up”. Both actions could insult people, and I would argue are disrespectful and unhelpful, but cannot be interpreted as ‘threatening or abusive’.

Which leads me to the only logical conclusion available; the Commander was referring to the soon to be obsolete ‘insulting’ section of the act.

She has given a public warning to those planning to protest (which we should remember is their right to do) that they may be arrested for simply insulting someone.

Everyone from staunch Thatcherites through to liberal lefties should be up in arms about this. It simply cannot be justified for the police to make any arrests under this outdated and discredited clause.

We all have the freedom to insult those in morning – it is up to the individual, not the state, whether or not we exercise this freedom.

2 Comments

Filed under Human rights, Politics, Social comment

Tagged as , , ,

April 9, 2013 · 6:26 pm

Celebrating Thatcher’s death is wrong both pragmatically and in principle

I was due to speak on the BBC World Service tonight but after sound check my internet and phone died.

This however is roughly what I had hoped to say:

“Both pragmatically and in principle, celebrating Thatcher’s death is wrong.

In principle, at such a difficult time that is shared by all humans  – death – we should be looking for the human side of Thatcher. We should be seeing the side of her that has friends and family who are going through great pain at the moment morning their loss.

At the same time though we should not under-estimate the genuine pain and anger that is felt by many and has been bought to the surface by her death. In principle we must let people morn but we cannot forget the harm her policies have caused.

Pragmatically though we should be focusing our energies on the neo-cons who now sit around the cabinet table implementing her legacy with terrifying efficiency. Celebrating the death of an 87 year old moves us no closer to tackling this blight.

In fact the opposite, it alienates us from everyone who looks on disgusted that people could be rejoicing at another human’s death. It puts us in that unpalatable category of Galloway and the Socialist Workers.

If this discussion was about the death of Thatcherism I would be the first one in the streets. But it is not, Thatcherism lives on more powerful and more accepted than ever before.

All that has changed is that an old lady is now no longer with us.

If people want to celebrate that it is their right to do so, but I think it is wrong and ultimately not useful”

3 Comments

Filed under Politics

Tagged as , , ,

April 8, 2013 · 4:06 pm

Thatcher is dead, but Thatcherism is alive: If only it could be the other way round

So thousands of views later and literally hundreds of messages (most of which assume I am some sort of die hard Thatcherite) about my original post I feel like it is time to respond.

I believe in freedom of speech – passionately so. If you want to tweet about Thatcher within hours of her death, then knock yourself out – it’s your right.  This, in line with my freedom of thought, does not stop me thinking that you are tasteless to show such little remorse or humility in the light of a person’s death.

There is little politically that Thatcher did that I agreed with. But I am not about to spend my time jumping up and down on her grave (or tweeting not very good jokes) about her. People are in mourning for fucks sake.

Her life and now her death were political and many think that justifies a public argument within seconds of her death. Personally I take her death as a reminder that behind every politician is just an ordinary person that has friends, family and yes….even emotions.

Imagine if you will that your mother had just died, would you appreciate this sort of public reaction?

Ah, but as Mark Steel tweeted “It’s fair to complain about my lack of compassion, if you have no compassion for victims of apartheid, Pinochet, sinking of Belgrano…” Grow the fuck up. ‘She showed no remorse to others so I can’t show her any remorse’ …really? What playschool of ethics did you attend Mark?

Using her death as a political football moves us no closer to dismantling the toxic legacy that she left.

This though can wait until another day.

For now, my thoughts go out to all those who knew her and are mourning their loss.

13 Comments

Filed under Politics, Social comment

Tagged as , , ,

· 12:05 pm

Thatcher dies and the left responds

Mark Ferguson tweeted within seconds of Thatcher’s death:

Sadly, many on the left seem to have missed this:

By 4:36pm #dingdongthewitchisdead was trending across the globe. Others contributed:

I will continue to add to this list throughout the day….

* For clarity, I don’t think this is a left right thing, but a decency thing. This is why I put together this article.

63 Comments

Filed under Politics, Social comment

Tagged as , , ,

April 3, 2013 · 8:01 am

The case for keeping Trident dwindles by the day

Faslane anti Trident demo
In a letter to the Guardian Richard Lawson made this rather wonderful point:

“In the Guardian, 1 April, on page 25 we read that “we will appear dangerously weak if we are prepared to give up [Trident] insurance”. On page 26 we read that “the central committee of the Workers’ Party made clear that it sees nuclear weapons as guaranteeing the nation’s life”. For the avoidance of all misunderstanding, page 25 is about the UK Labour party and therefore sound and reasonable, and page 26 is the opinion of dangerously irrational North Korean nuclear fanatics.
Dr Richard Lawson
Churchill, North Somerset”

Interesting what the light of rational scrutiny shows up…

Leave a Comment

Filed under Media, Politics

Tagged as , , ,

March 19, 2013 · 5:07 pm

The evolution of the coalition’s nuclear policy

Remember this:

Charles Hendry saying “The coalition agreement clearly sees a role for new nuclear, provided that there is no public subsidy.”

I remember it well.

I thought about it last April when this headline broke::

Fro the Guardian, “Ministers planning ‘hidden subsidies’ for nuclear power.”

In case there was any confusion, Fiona Hall the Lib Dem leader in the European Parliament, clarified:

“Such a public subsidy to help build new nuclear power stations in the UK would go completely against the Coalition Government Agreement.”

Well, guess what. Now we have this:

The Guardian reports, “Energy secretary Ed Davey grants EDF permission to build and run two reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset.”

Do I feel let down? Yeah, I do.

Hinkley Point

Update:

Caroline Lucas hits the nail on the head when she says:

“Despite the energy department’s attempts to rewrite the dictionary on the definition of a subsidy, it’s now blindingly obvious that billions of pounds of public money will be thrown at new nuclear in the form of a strike price and the underwriting of costs including accident liability and construction – in direct breach of the Coalition agreement”

Leave a Comment

Filed under Climate Change, Economics, Politics

Tagged as , , ,

March 11, 2013 · 5:59 pm

Why Chris Huhne should not be behind bars

Former MP Chris Huhne has been handed an eight month jail sentence for perverting the course of justice. During the sentencing the judge accused Huhne of trying to lie himself out of trouble “again and again”.

The sentencing comes at an estimated cost of over £100,000 for the Crown Prosecution Service after Huhne attempted to have the prosecution thrown out before the trial began.

According to a probation officer, Huhne’s sentence will cost the tax payer an estimated £1200 for every week he spends behind bars. If Huhne and his wife serve their entire 8 months sentences this will rack up a bill of over £80,000.

John Mann MP quickly pointed out, although I suspect with slightly ulterior motives, that Huhne is not alone in receiving an expensive prison sentences.

Huhne’s sentencing is the latest inappropriate use of our prison system as the prison population continues to spiral. Prison population has grown to over 80,000 today. That’s a 300% increase since the early 90s.

This means that we are spending over £96,000,000 every week in housing our prison population!

Money well spent?

New figures show reoffending rates spiralling alongside imprisonment rates for reoffending spiralling. In light of this there is a growing call asking why prison remains the default punishment for so many offences.

Mehdi Hassan perhaps best summoned up many people’s thoughts when he tweeted this reaction to Huhne’s sentencing:

The question remains. What public interest has Huhne’s imprisonment served that an alternative punishment would not have?

Update – A correction was made soon after publishing. Of course, the offense to which John Mann MP refers is not the same offence to which Huhne was sentenced!

3 Comments

Filed under Politics

Tagged as , ,

March 4, 2013 · 10:20 am

Boris 4 Leader

BORIS-620_1561166aAccording to our friends over at the Mail, “Boris yearns with a mad hunger to become prime minister”. It is time for the left to embrace BoJo’s appetite and feed his hunger. It is time for a new campaign, Boris 4 Leader.

Boris Johnson as Conservative Party leader. It has quite a ring to it don’t you think?

Well it does for me at least. For me, it is hard to imagine any leader who has the potential to so spectacularly divide his party, alienate the electorate and leave himself internationally isolated?

But, it is not just me though who this  idea appeals to. The right genuinely believe that he “builds bridges across sociological chasms”. They think that he can appeal to “the youth” that have so consistently rejected the Tories.

His supporters have been spurred on by a YouGov poll which suggested that the Tories would get a six point jump in polls if Boris was leader. They look on at Ladbrokes who currently have Boris as favourite to become the next leader. They read reports of Boris meeting with Rupert Murdoch and think maybe, just maybe.

With a safe seat waiting for him and an inevitable poor showing in May’s European Parliament elections awaiting for the Tories, it is time to make the final push for BoJo’s leadership bid.

This is where you come in. I need you to ‘like’, ‘share’ and ‘tweet’ this facebook campaign - Boris 4 Leader. Spread it like wild fire. Make those at Conservative HQ believe that Boris is the popular choice!

A dangerous game your thinking….what happens if this backfires and he finds himself at number 10?

Let me explain, 3 good reasons why he won’t make it to downing street. In short…gay marriage, the EU and the man himself all make this plan fail proof. 

Boris is a vocal supporter of the Gay Marriage campaign. He offers no solution to the rift at the heart of the Conservative Party that resulted in 136 MPs rebelling against the government.  A vote that equalled the largest post-war rebellion.

This alienates the principled in the Conservative Party who are opposed to gay marriage as well as the pragmatic who see their core Middle-England vote slipping away.

On the EU – Boris seems as equally capable of flip-flopping between the populist referendum argument whilst at the same time admitting:

“Suppose Britain voted tomorrow to come out. What would actually happen? In real terms, what would happen is that the Foreign Office would immediately build a huge – well, the entire delegation would remain in Brussels…We’d still have huge numbers of staff trying to monitor what was going on in the community, only we wouldn’t be able to sit in the Council of Ministers. We wouldn’t have any vote at all”.

Boris knows that a referendum is popular (and right) but that it scares all his pales in the city. Who to chose, the backbenchers or the bankers?

In addition to his inability to unite a divided party there is what Max Hastings in the Mail describes as his, “chaotic personal persona” or the fact that he is, “bereft of judgment… and discretion”.

His personality and on-going gaffes provide great headlines but have serious long term implications.

Will the good people of Portsmouth feel represented by a man who is quoted as saying, “Here we are in one of the most depressed downs in southern England, a place that is arguably too full of drugs, obesity, underachievement and Labour MPs”

Will any Brit associate with a leader who describes their £250,000 salary as “chicken feed”.

In the US he has already been dubbed as “more gaffe-prone than Romney”. Ouch.

It won’t be long until he is seen by colleagues as a liability within his party, with the electorate and internationally. The challenge is to ensure that he is leader of the Conservative Party before this happens.

Once this is achieved, we just need to watch Boris do his ‘ting’ and put our feet up and watch the Conservatives implode.

2 Comments

Filed under Politics

Tagged as , , , ,

February 21, 2013 · 8:39 am

Zionists and Palestinian Activists Unite In Condemning Galloway

“The reason is simple; No recognition, No normalisation. Just Boycott, divestment and sanctions, until the Apartheid state is defeated”

This is the explanation George Galloway MP gave for walking out of a debate after stating he doesn’t “debate with Israelis”.

Everyone from Harry’s Place through to the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign (PSC) has condemned Galloway’s overtly discriminatory views.

I find it extraordinary that someone who claims to working for peace in the region will refuse to talk to an entire nation of people.

By saying he won’t debate with Israelis, is he saying that he won’t debate with the millions of Palestinian Arabs who hold Israeli citizenship as well?

Or is he saying he won’t with Jewish Israelis?

His view makes no sense. The very suggestion that every Israeli citizen is tacitly involved in the Israelis state oppression of Palestinians is inaccurate and insulting.

It is insulting to the Israelis working at the human rights group B’Tselem. It is insulting to Israeli journalists like Gideon Levy who have devoted their lives to exposing the realities in the occupied territories. It is insulting to anyone who is trying to hold onto a vague sense of shared humanity in this conflict that seems so determined to strip people of this.

Both pragmatically and principally, Galloway’s stance is wrong.

Expect an apology…from George Galloway? No chance.

Galloway later turned to twitter to defend his stance:

3 Comments

Filed under Human rights, Middle East, Politics, War

Tagged as , , , ,

February 20, 2013 · 8:16 am

An unemployed mother, 11 children and a council ‘eco-mansion’ – the true cost to society

My home village, Churchdown, has become the centre of a media storm. Blowing in from middle England this storm is causing lasting damage. Not just to Britain’s poorest families but to each and every one of us.

Just round the corner from the Hare and Hounds in Churchdown, one of my old haunts, lives Heather Frost. Heather is unemployed and is currently living in temporary council accommodation with her 11 children.

Cue the tabloid hysteria…

The Sun reports “A JOBLESS mum on benefits is having a £400,000 council house built for her — and her brood of ELEVEN children”

The Daily Mail goes with, “mother of 11 to get six-bedroom eco-house after moaning her TWO council homes are cramped”

While The Express analysed the events saying, “The result has instead been to create powerful incentives for irresponsible people to bring into the world very large numbers of children they cannot possibly support”

I am not here to argue the morality of having 11 children, but to comment on the media storm surrounding this story.

I hope to show how it’s inaccuracies and how it causes lasting damage not just to some of the poorest in our society but to each and every one of us.

So where to start in this quagmire of misinformation?

Virtually all media reporting of the story goes to great length to try and generalise Heather’s quite extraordinary story into an attack on our benefits system in general.  The Daily Mail reports that there are over 190 families with more than 10 children and this is costing us, the taxpayer, over £11 million a year.

Of course, what the Mail describes is a fraction of the overall benefits system.  These 190 households sit alongside 1.35 million other households where at least one parent claims an out of work benefit.

Ally Fogg in the Guardian points out that the £11 million that these families receive, constitutes less than one hundredth of 1% of the total benefits bill of £100bn (excluding pensions).

The cost to us…the taxpayer? Small change.

The Express tries to score come political points with it’s analysis that we now have a ‘powerful incentive’ for people to have more children.

This ‘powerful incentive’ the Express describes is referring to child benefit. This currently stands at just £20.30 a week for your first child and then an additional £13.40 a week for any further children you have.

To put this into context. Krishna News in Churchdown paid me more money per week for doing a paper round than Heather Frost gets for each of her additional children.

Additionally, two of her children are between 16 and 20 so she would only receive child benefit if they are still in full time education. Her oldest child is now 21 so is not eligible for child benefit.

Who needs facts when you write for the Express though? Little inconvenient facts like the average reproduction rate of 1.9 children for families on benefit. The almost identical reproduction rate to those not on benefits.

If there is a ‘powerful incentive’ to have children on benefits (which there isn’t)  then those on benefits have yet to spot it.

Ah, but she is having a brand new £400,000 house built for her and her ‘brood’ The Sun reports. Well, keep reading and in paragraph 7 of that same story it explains how Tewksbury Council could afford this. It states, “Tewkesbury Borough Council sold a plot of land…to Severn Vale Housing association…A condition of the sale was that one of the 15 affordable properties they built on the site would be a six-bedroom home”.

The penny drops. When The Sun quotes Robert Oxley from the TaxPayers Alliance saying, “It’s scandalous that so much time and money is being spent on one custom-built house” he doesn’t actually say whether or not it is ‘tax payer’s money’ that is being spent.

These stories fuel a hatred for some of the poorest families in Britain. Regardless of how many times tabloids but the word ‘struggling’ mockingly in inverted commas, it won’t effect the fact that 1 in 5 Brits live in poverty and are struggling.

These stories though act as smokescreens. They force us to focus on how the poor are costing us rather than how poverty is costing all of us.

As we worry about the £11 million being spent on people with large families we learn to ignore the £25 billion that child poverty is costing the UK every year.

The people who suffer? Not just the 4.5 million at risk of homelessness who are currently on the housing waiting list or the 3.6 million children that are living in poverty in the UK.

In times of austerity, this media storm is costing all of us.

UPDATE: New Research out today suggest that in many UK cities over 40% of kids live in poverty.

11 Comments

Filed under Gloucestershire, Homelessness, Politics, Social comment

Tagged as , , ,