The inside track since 2003

Ed Balls, David Miliband and Ed Miliband will probably join Andy Burnham and possibly Dianne Abbott and probably not John McDonnell for leadership debates here:

Sunday 13 June – Glasgow Hustings
www.labour.org.uk/glasgowhustings

Saturday 19 June – Ethnic Minority Hustings, Leicester
www.labour.org.uk/ethnicminorityhustings

Saturday 26 June – Newcastle
www.labour.org.uk/newcastlehustings

Sunday 4 July – Cardiff
www.labour.org.uk/cardiffhustings

Saturday 10 July – Southampton
www.labour.org.uk/southamptonhustings

Friday 16 July – London
www.labour.org.uk/londonhustings

Sunday 18 July – Birmingham
www.labour.org.uk/birminghamhustings

Sunday 25 July – Women’s Hustings, Leeds
www.labour.org.uk/womenshustings

Saturday 31 July – Manchester
www.labour.org.uk/manchesterhustings

Dear Tom

I have decided to stand for the Chair of the Health Select Committee and would like to ask for your vote on Wednesday.

I have never held any front bench ambition and have been labelled a ‘rebel’; however, I prefer to regard myself as principled, which I think is an ideal quality for a Committee Chair.

With ten years nursing experience within the NHS, a former union member and a natural leaning to towards all health related issues; I feel I can bring a prior knowledge, passion and understanding to the Chair. As a single mother of three daughters and someone who in recent years has taken full responsibility for two terminally ill elderly relatives, I also bring practical first hand experience of what it is like to be on the receiving end, both as a patient and a carer.

I have no outside interests and would commit myself fully to the role.

However, I understand you will have concerns with regard to my standing and this email is to alleviate what I believe may be your primary concern.

I want to provide you with my absolute, solemn word and undertaking, should I be successful, that in no way whatsoever will I use the position in order to further my campaign of the last Parliament, to reduce the upper limit at which abortion takes place.

This is because my own personal belief in this area is beyond persuasion and I would find it very difficult to remain objective. Any report produced by a Committee which I chaired regarding any area of abortion would be weakened by my Chairmanship and subject to claims of bias, regardless of the evidence.

My own health interests lie in the areas of maternal health, childhood obesity, mental health (particularly teenagers), depression, breast cancer and all aspects of care delivery.

I also give you my word that I will attempt to ensure that all members of the committee leave party politics at the door. That the Committee works truly and wholly on behalf of the people. That we challenge thoroughly, deeply and analytically every major health policy decision brought forward by the coalition government.

The next few years are going to bring budget cuts. David Cameron promised real term spending increases for health. I intend to help him stick to that promise.

The structure of the new Committees will provide us with an opportunity to embrace democracy in a way which in the past has become damaged and eroded.

It would be my wish to ensure that every member of the committee found it an exciting, interesting and career enhancing experience and wanted to attend each sitting, rather than looking for a reason to be absent.

Yours as ever,

Nadine

A great Mick Jagger interview. One answer in particular struck me:

“people only made money out of records for a very, very small time. When

The Rolling Stones started out, we didn’t make any money out of records
because record companies wouldn’t pay you! They didn’t pay anyone!
Then, there was a small period from 1970 to 1997, where people did get
paid, and they got paid very handsomely and everyone made money. But now
that period has gone.

So if you look at the history of recorded music from 1900 to now, there
was a 25 year period where artists did very well, but the rest of the
time they didn’t.”

I was saddened to read in this morning’s Guardian that one in five children have never received a letter. I tweeted a link and a comment that it was sad. When I was a kid, I used to love letters arriving in the post. I remember the local Conservative MP writing to me about the closure of the local swimming pool. It meant a lot to me, even though back in the 1970′s he was in favour of “spending taxpayers money wisely” by closing my beloved pool. He still wrote back. I’ve never forgotten that.

Those poor kids who’ve never had the joy of opening an evelope from grandma or a pen pal in Malawi or the secretary of the Dennis the Menace Fan Club. These things should matter.

Opinion on Twitter was more divided. Some thought I was taking an anachronistic view.

“Seems like empty nostalgia to me. Like lamenting about how few children have used a plough. Or developed rickets.”

“its only sad from a nostalgia point of view. I’ve never been in a horse and cart which people would once have thought sad”

Others thought it inevitable:

“It has been downhill since cuneiform.I do get your point though, I think it is just one of those things that will pass. Like TB.”

“that is very sad. The art of letter writing is a victim of technology.”

But more thought that the art of letter writing was worth fighting for. The idea of directing ink across paper, crafting letters to form words was something to be cherished:

“my mum is a primary school teacher, and sends her 8 year olds thank you letters and birthday cards at home. They love it!”

Another, quoted Auden:

“And none shall hear the postman’s knock

Without a quickening of the heart

For who can bear to feel himself forgotten?”

This statement impressed me: “I sometimes hand write letters to friends. Sick of how disconnected net made us even though we’re more “connected” than ever.”

My pal Dan said  ”I miss letters. Not bills, but handwritten letters from people you rate. #web0”

So even the most digitally connected people love the idea of handwritten notes. I think we should create a kind of Secret Santa for handwritten letters. There must be some clever coders out there who could knock something up.

I’ve been told that an amendment has been accepted on the Digital Economy Bill. It says:

“Conference urges Liberal Democrat MPs and members of the coalition Government to take all possible steps to ensure that the freedom bill includes the repeal of those sections of the Digital Economy Act 2010 which are inconsistent with policy motion Freedom,Creativity and the Internet as passed at Spring Conference 2010.”

That’s basically Clauses 11-18 of the Digital Economy Act on cutting access and web blocking.

And why the candidates should be tested out at our Annual Conference.

I was at a brilliant social media event tonight.  A number of non-aligned delegates raised some pertinent points:

1. If Labour’s future leaders are to be “authentic”, they’re going to have to produce their own web content and they’ll have to do this over time not just during elections.

2. We need a “Labour Uncut” approach. That’s a clever way of saying we have to be clearer about our stresses and strains, be more transparent about our policy dilemmas; be more up front with our work in progress

3. A Labour Uncut approach should not fear giving credit to the new government when they do good things. A number of people praised the commitment to ending ID cards for example. Others looked forward to the repeal of the Digital Economy Act. Amen to that.

4. Others said that they looked forward to Labour’s innovators finding imaginative ways of holding the government to account in the digital space. Someone said that this is the first new government of the Internet age. Of course, Labour is also the first new opposition of the internet age.

5. One last thing. It isn’t half great not worrying about a call from Downing Street if you say something too controversial. I almost feel sorry for the social media friendly ministers in the new government. Almost, anyway.

JH: That was a very positive and constructive meeting. We talked about how the national interests could be best served by politicians working together in the best interests of the country

EM: What about the Liberal Democrats’ interest?

JH: Well it’s the national interest which is the absolutely critical thing. The country is in a very difficult situation, we need political reform, we need economic reform, we need a better deal for the kids – the pupil premium, and we also need a better tax deal for the low-paid.

EM: What was decided about the bottom line because David Cameron has laid where he doesn’t really want to move, what do the Liberal Democrats say in that regard?

JH: What we say is that we want to put the national interest first and that what we are looking at is the four planks on which we fought the general election campaign. To think that we might sort of do anything other than what was in our manifesto is somewhat surprising.

EM: How does your education policy dovetail with the Conservative policy?

JH: Well interestingly they seem quite positive about the pupil premium which makes that perhaps a very easy issue to settle.

EM: And voting reform?

JH: Well the political reform is a much wider issue than just voting reform. In theory they support the Wright Report reforms for instance.

EM: What about changing the voting system which is what so many people shouting outside want to hear about?

JH: Well exactly and changing the voting system is one something we want to see.

EM: But you’re being promised an inquiry which isn’t the same thing as getting the change?

JH: Well I’m not going into the details of the negotiations, I’m not on the negotiating group.

EM: I just wondered what the mood of the meeting was?

JH: Well the mood of the meeting was that we should decide what to do in the national interest.

EM: That’s a phrase that you’ve repeated several times and people can interpret that a hundred ways I guess. I’m asking you abut an important detail about a central plank of Liberal Democrat policy.

JH: I would have thought to most people in the country, when the country is in such financial problems as it is, that people would want us to be focussed on the economic situation and what’s good for the children and things like that.

EM: So forget voting reform for now is that it?

JH: I’m not saying forget voting reform for now, what I’m saying is we have four planks to the manifesto and those are the planks that we’re looking at in negotiations.

January 2010: “Lib Dems ‘should say no deal to coalition’ – John Hemming”

That’s what David Cameron said off camera.

There’s a report in today’s Sunday Telegraph that’s inaccurate. I wasn’t asked to verify the story, particularly the statement that I was excluded from the campaign:

“By contrast a number of Mr Brown’s most trusted advisers – including Tom Watson, the former Cabinet Office minister, and Charlie Whelan, the Prime Minister’s former spin doctor who is now the political director of the Unite union, have been effectively excluded.”

For the record: I was asked on at least two occasions to play a role in the national campaign. I declined because I wanted to spend the month of the election, campaigning in West Bromwich and larking about with my kids. For the Watson household, annual elections would be a joy.

Also for the record, though I disagreed with parts of his Digital Economy Bill, I have the highest regard for Peter Mandelson. No-one could lead Labour’s election campaign better than he. He has my total support in this campaign, as he has done since I was his photocopy boy in the 1987 general election.

It’s more than a quarter of a century since I took my first job as a trainee library assistant at Labour HQ. If I’ve learnt one thing in those years it’s that whoever you appoint as an election campaign manager is the boss. They make the calls. And thank heavens we have Peter running our operation.

The news that Lord Adonis and his colleagues are getting to grips with the effects of the Icelandic volcano is to be welcomed.

Less good is the entirely predictable announcement by the Conservatives of their “8-point plan to address the flight crisis”. Have they learnt nothing from the reaction to the TV debate last week?

If you want to look at the election issues resulting from this unprecedented event, you have to have a deeper analysis than cooking up an 8-point plan on a Sunday Morning. People expect a grown up approach not a silly press release designed to get a page lead in Monday’s Sun newspaper.

So what are the issues?

The volcano could have an impact, hopefully intermittent, for the next 2 years.

Aircraft have proved unable to deal with the immediate impact, how will the rest of the transport infrastructure cope over the next few years?

As Nick Clegg would say, I don’t have all the answers but how the political parties stand on infrastructure investment, public services, regulation and European Union are going to be key determinants of success.

We have a transport system built on the just-in-time, capital maximisation model that doesn’t seem to be able to cope with natural events. And all three political parties are looking to reduce public sector investment, the Tories dramatically so.

I would argue that the Tories lean public sector infrastructure philosophy, part of their post bureaucratic age narrative, is more prone to break down, when something unusual happens.

Pressure will be felt greater on companies with distribution, logistics, advisory services, product sourcing and production spread across continents in order to chase price gains. These companies are going to need a government that maintains, enhances and re-enforces transport networks.

The sort of company that would benefit from this approach is Marks and Spencer. They increasingly source their materials abroad and they require a reliable distribution network. As we have seen, their Chairman is rather vociferous when the government takes decisions to maintain a basic level of public sector investment. Governments sometimes have to take decisions that upset the narrow, short term interests of business leaders in order to protect the wider, long term interests of business leaders. That’s life.

Right now, there could be up to 1 million people in the wrong place 72 hours after the event. In some parts of Europe, public transport and public services looked close to breaking point. If this is going to be a regular event in future years, who do you want to deal with it?

There are always lessons to be learned. But history has already taught us a few. Strip back public services to the core and our quality of life suffers.

One final, completely partisan point. Thank heavens Lord Adonis is in charge and not the hapless Theresa Villiers.

Forget Clegg mania, the Watson household is full of Dalek mania.

After last night’s Dr Who (written into my campaign schedule by my son), Junior Watson is voting Dalek. When promped, he did say that he’d support the new Labour Red Dalek. Small mercies and all that.

Nick Clegg’s success in the TV debates on Thursday has already had a positive effect in West Bromwich East. People are now talking about the election, and it’s wonderful.

In the last 48 hours I’ve taken phone calls and emails from people wanting to know about my detailed stance on dozens of policy positions – from child care and schools to international aid, tax, euthanasia, drugs, immigration, crime, litter and trains.

And if we can get this election re-calibrated, to end silly media and advertising stunts and start talking about policy, then all the better.

I’ve been on a journey these last nine years, so a debate about how we can build a progressive future is to be welcomed.

There are still issues on which Labour and the Lib Dems profoundly disagree. No doubt they’ll come out in the next few weeks. There’s no point in being churlish though. Nick Clegg has opened up this election.

Let the debate begin.