Wednesday, 7 April 2010
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
Electoral Publicity on Internet and Social Networking Material
I set out below guidance issued by the Electoral Commission in respect of such matters. This advice is contained on page 36 of the Guidance to Candidates and Agents- Local Government Elections.
INTERNET and SOCIAL NETWORKING MATERIAL
The rules on including an Imprint do not apply to material that appears on a website, on a social networking site or any such system. However, websites that contain material by or on behalf of a candidate should have an Imprint as a matter of good practice.
The Imprint to be included should be the same as for printed material, except that there would be clearly no requirement to give the printers details.
Any posters that are available for download from a website should, however, carry the full imprint, i.e. include the full details of both the printer and the promoter.
INTERNET and SOCIAL NETWORKING MATERIAL
The rules on including an Imprint do not apply to material that appears on a website, on a social networking site or any such system. However, websites that contain material by or on behalf of a candidate should have an Imprint as a matter of good practice.
The Imprint to be included should be the same as for printed material, except that there would be clearly no requirement to give the printers details.
Any posters that are available for download from a website should, however, carry the full imprint, i.e. include the full details of both the printer and the promoter.
Monday, 5 April 2010
Cllr Norman Owen on the Politics Show.
In this weeks Salford Advertiser Cllr Norman Owen boasts about his brilliant appearance on the Politics Show. Judge for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL8n4OqEhWg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL8n4OqEhWg
Cllr Norman Owen response.
A gimmick is defined in my dictionary as a device for the purpose of attracting publicity - so I would expect that Cllr Norman Owen would be sufficiently familiar with the term to be able to use it properly.
Unfortunately, he applies it to real money, which will make a real difference to the real issue of the condition of our highways.
It is not a gimmick to resurface around 90 roads in the coming weeks from the final £850,000 of a five year investment programme.
It is not a gimmick to resurace at least another 100 roads from an extra £2.8m investment found by the Lead Member for Finance, Cllr Bill Hinds, thanks to extra savings we have made on tripping claims.
It is not a gimmick to set aside an extra £0.5 million to fill potholes in response to the 50% increase in repairs needed as a result of the severe winter.
And it is not a gimmick to top that up with the extra £200,000 the Chancellor awarded Salford in his budget to tackle potholes.
These are a genuine response to the genuine concerns of the people of Salford and Cllr Owen's negative comments are, I fear, symptomatic of his philosophy: he attacks what is good for Salford - because what is good for Salford is bad for Norman Owen.
It is, however, a gimmick for Cllr Owen to be photographed pointing to a pothole he know is in a programme to be repaired. And when Cllr Owen voted for a cut in the budget that includes potholes last year - well, that was just plain hypocrisy.
Councillor Derek Antrobus
Lead Member for Planning
Unfortunately, he applies it to real money, which will make a real difference to the real issue of the condition of our highways.
It is not a gimmick to resurface around 90 roads in the coming weeks from the final £850,000 of a five year investment programme.
It is not a gimmick to resurace at least another 100 roads from an extra £2.8m investment found by the Lead Member for Finance, Cllr Bill Hinds, thanks to extra savings we have made on tripping claims.
It is not a gimmick to set aside an extra £0.5 million to fill potholes in response to the 50% increase in repairs needed as a result of the severe winter.
And it is not a gimmick to top that up with the extra £200,000 the Chancellor awarded Salford in his budget to tackle potholes.
These are a genuine response to the genuine concerns of the people of Salford and Cllr Owen's negative comments are, I fear, symptomatic of his philosophy: he attacks what is good for Salford - because what is good for Salford is bad for Norman Owen.
It is, however, a gimmick for Cllr Owen to be photographed pointing to a pothole he know is in a programme to be repaired. And when Cllr Owen voted for a cut in the budget that includes potholes last year - well, that was just plain hypocrisy.
Councillor Derek Antrobus
Lead Member for Planning
The Sun and the BNP
The Sun newspaper appears to be celebrating the "increased popularity of the BNP", which is being picked up and promoted by the BNP itself: http://www.general-election-2010.co.uk/uk-party-political-news/%E2%80%9Cbnp-gaining-in-popularity%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%94-the-sunAnd according to a recent YouGov poll, 1/3 of BNP members read The Sun: Who votes BNP and why (Searchlight report)A new survey into the attitudes of BNP voters has produced some startling revelations. Unsurprisingly BNP voters are overwhelmingly opposed to immigration and asylum seekers but a sizeable number also share the BNP’s hardline attitudes about citizenship and racial superiority.It shows that BNP voters are predominantly working class, drawn from former Labour-voting households and feel more insecure about their economic prospects.Conducted by YouGov from 29 May to 4 June, the survey questioned 985 BNP voters as part of a much bigger study of the political views of 32,268 people.The study tells us that men are twice as likely to support the BNP as women, 44% of BNP voters are aged 35 to 54 and 61% are drawn from the social groups C2DE. One third of BNP voters read The Sun or the Daily Star, whereas only 13% read the Daily Mirror and those reading The Guardian and The Independent are statistically insignificant. One fifth claim to be members of trade unions or trade associations and 36% identify themselves as skilled or semi-skilled manual workers.On one level the report tells us little new. More BNP supporters regard immigration as one of the key issues facing the country at the moment – 87% compared to 49% among all voters. Again unsurprisingly, 94% of BNP supporters believed that all further immigration should be halted. This compares with 87% of UK Independence Party voters, 68% of Conservative voters, 46% of Labour voters, 43% of Lib Dem voters and even 37% of Green voters.Only 4% of BNP voters believed that recent immigration had benefited the country.What is more startling is the strength of the racial attitudes of many BNP voters. In a result that gives the lie to the BNP vote simply being a protest, 44% (compared to 12% of all voters) disagreed with the statement: “non-white British citizens who were born in this country are just as ‘British’ as white citizens born in this country”.Among BNP voters 21% strongly disagreed with the statement compared to just 1% of Greens and Lib Dems and 2% of Labour and 3% of Conservative voters.More disturbingly, 31% of BNP voters believed there was a difference in intelligence between the average black Briton and the average white Briton.http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=284
Thursday, 1 April 2010
THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY'S CREDIBILITY DEFICIT
Today Labour published a new analysis of Conservative tax and spending promises. It shows that they have made promises of tax cuts and new spending worth nearly £29 billion - but have only identified just under £6.5 billion of savings to pay for them. This leaves them with a "credibility deficit" of over £22 billion.
In addition to this, matching our deficit target even one year faster would mean having to find a further £26 billion through cuts to public services or extra taxes.
When we published a list of Conservative tax and spending promises in January, it plunged the Conservative Party into disarray - David Cameron wobbled on his flagship policy of tax breaks for married couples and his party also broke key promises on policies such as NHS single rooms and extra prison places.
But they have also made new commitments, such as this week's promise to reverse the planned National Insurance rise - without setting out clear, credible savings to pay for them.
Alistair Darling MP, Labour's Chancellor of the Exchequer said:"In January, we brought together for the first time all the promises David Cameron and George Osborne had made."The challenge to them in January was to eliminate the entire ‘credibility gap' in their plans - before they could say anything meaningful about going further and tackling the deficit at all. The challenge was to eliminate their entire credibility gap. They failed."Today we have looked at this again, it leaves the Conservatives with a ‘credibility deficit' of £22 billion. It means they are now forced to find £22 billion in extra spending cuts or tax rises to deal with this, even before they have made any moves to cut the deficit faster than we are."So the challenge to David Cameron today is - stand up and tell people: which of these are promises you'll stand by - and ident ify the real cuts or tax increases that you'll do to afford them or be clear to people which further promises you are breaking today."If he fails to do so, the Tories will have no credibility left."
Peter Mandelson, Labour's Business Secretary said:"In the coming weeks we are going to focus relentlessly on these Tory plans. On the fact that money doesn't grow on trees. Tax cuts cannot be plucked out of thin air. And that, if you want to protect frontline services - as we do - they have to be paid for."The credibility of David Cameron and George Osborne is an important issue - for the public, for the markets and internationally."But even more important are the costs to the British people. The list of Conservative tax and spending promises that we have outlined today all have to be paid for by the public."
We have made our choices and set out our deficit reduction plan - halving the deficit over four years with fair tax rises and lower spending growth. We have also set out the tax rises that will be part of that plan - totalling £19 billion. They do not include a rise in VAT. As the Chancellor said today, he considered VAT but chose to raise NICs as the fair choice - protecting those earning under £20,000 and not affecting pensioners.
No Chancellor ever rules out future tax changes. But we are clear that we have no need to raise VAT to deliver our deficit reduction plan.
The Tories are the ones with a £22 billion credibility gap to fund, even before they start cutting the deficit. It's hard to see how they could deliver additional resources on that scale without raising VAT and making further large cuts in public spending.
In addition to this, matching our deficit target even one year faster would mean having to find a further £26 billion through cuts to public services or extra taxes.
When we published a list of Conservative tax and spending promises in January, it plunged the Conservative Party into disarray - David Cameron wobbled on his flagship policy of tax breaks for married couples and his party also broke key promises on policies such as NHS single rooms and extra prison places.
But they have also made new commitments, such as this week's promise to reverse the planned National Insurance rise - without setting out clear, credible savings to pay for them.
Alistair Darling MP, Labour's Chancellor of the Exchequer said:"In January, we brought together for the first time all the promises David Cameron and George Osborne had made."The challenge to them in January was to eliminate the entire ‘credibility gap' in their plans - before they could say anything meaningful about going further and tackling the deficit at all. The challenge was to eliminate their entire credibility gap. They failed."Today we have looked at this again, it leaves the Conservatives with a ‘credibility deficit' of £22 billion. It means they are now forced to find £22 billion in extra spending cuts or tax rises to deal with this, even before they have made any moves to cut the deficit faster than we are."So the challenge to David Cameron today is - stand up and tell people: which of these are promises you'll stand by - and ident ify the real cuts or tax increases that you'll do to afford them or be clear to people which further promises you are breaking today."If he fails to do so, the Tories will have no credibility left."
Peter Mandelson, Labour's Business Secretary said:"In the coming weeks we are going to focus relentlessly on these Tory plans. On the fact that money doesn't grow on trees. Tax cuts cannot be plucked out of thin air. And that, if you want to protect frontline services - as we do - they have to be paid for."The credibility of David Cameron and George Osborne is an important issue - for the public, for the markets and internationally."But even more important are the costs to the British people. The list of Conservative tax and spending promises that we have outlined today all have to be paid for by the public."
We have made our choices and set out our deficit reduction plan - halving the deficit over four years with fair tax rises and lower spending growth. We have also set out the tax rises that will be part of that plan - totalling £19 billion. They do not include a rise in VAT. As the Chancellor said today, he considered VAT but chose to raise NICs as the fair choice - protecting those earning under £20,000 and not affecting pensioners.
No Chancellor ever rules out future tax changes. But we are clear that we have no need to raise VAT to deliver our deficit reduction plan.
The Tories are the ones with a £22 billion credibility gap to fund, even before they start cutting the deficit. It's hard to see how they could deliver additional resources on that scale without raising VAT and making further large cuts in public spending.
Tories return to anti-Gypsy message
Wednesday 31 March 2010
Paul Donovan
The Tories have never liked the travelling community. At the last general election in 2005, then Tory leader Michael Howard made a point of attacking Irish travellers and Gypsies.
Now the party has issued a green paper which looks to reverse the limited gains that have been made over the last decade or so.
Many of today's problems were caused by the last Tory government's repeal of the Caravans Act 1968, which imposed a statutory obligation on local authorities to provide sites.
As a result, the travelling community was put into a state of perpetual motion, moving from one local authority to the next. There was no incentive for any local authority to provide sites.
There are estimated to be between 200,000 and 300,000 Gypsies and travellers in the UK.
To put the accommodation needs in perspective, the Equality and Human Rights Commission estimates that one square mile of land across England would provide enough authorised sites.
The Labour government has since called on local authorities to identify land suitable for sites and to build suitable accommodation for travellers.
This process has slowly been taking root across the country, accompanied by a number of scare stories in the tabloid press about compulsory purchase orders and travellers moving in on middle England.
Conservative-controlled authorities' reluctance to act in the spirit of this guidance was best illustrated by London Mayor Boris Johnson, who recently reduced the provision of sites in the London Plan from 538 to 238.
Originally travellers' groups had been pushing for 807 sites, the boroughs for 238.
In October Johnson accepted 538, but now the lower figure has been adopted.
The Tories' new green paper illustrates their desire to return to their early 1990s position on the travelling community.
The paper stresses a criminal justice approach, seeking to strengthen local authorities' powers to move travellers on, while removing any obligation to provide sites.
In a letter to The Conservative communities spokeswoman Caroline Spellman, Lord Eric Avebury warns: "If this document is used by Conservatives in local or national election campaigns, it will provoke community tensions, as occurred at the last general election when negative Conservative policies, less extreme than the present green paper, aroused great concern among Gypsies and travellers and an increase in racism in schools and the wider community."
But the Labour government, rather than standing its ground over this threat, has issued guidance on anti-social behaviour within the Gypsy and travelling community.
The guidance points to the use of Asbos, acceptable behaviour contracts and injunctions. It specifies particular offending behaviour such as fly-tipping, noise, straying livestock and untaxed vehicles.
The fact is that the travelling community is one of the most discriminated-against groups in British society.
Statistics show the community receiving second-class health care, limited educational opportunities and it has an over-representation among the prison population.
Some of the official data makes for shocking reading, with life expectancy among travellers 10 years less than for the settled population and self-reported mental illness standing at 19 per cent, compared with 9 per cent in the general population.
The travelling population also has the highest number of miscarriages among Britain's ethnic groups, with a rate of 29 per cent compared with 16 per cent for the general population.
Premature deaths of older offspring are 18 per cent, compared with 1 per cent for the general population.
There has been some progress over recent years to address some of the travelling community's problems, most notably over site provision and health care.
Slowly but surely the world of Gypsies and travellers is becoming better known to the wider community. It must be hoped that greater tolerance will follow.
What is not needed now is a gutter-based election campaign with political parties competing to see who can be toughest on one of the most marginalised groups in society. Pandering to prejudice and the desire of some to scapegoat minorities in order to win cheap votes will help no-one.
Read more of Paul Donovan's writing at www.paulfdonovan.blogspot.com
Paul Donovan
The Tories have never liked the travelling community. At the last general election in 2005, then Tory leader Michael Howard made a point of attacking Irish travellers and Gypsies.
Now the party has issued a green paper which looks to reverse the limited gains that have been made over the last decade or so.
Many of today's problems were caused by the last Tory government's repeal of the Caravans Act 1968, which imposed a statutory obligation on local authorities to provide sites.
As a result, the travelling community was put into a state of perpetual motion, moving from one local authority to the next. There was no incentive for any local authority to provide sites.
There are estimated to be between 200,000 and 300,000 Gypsies and travellers in the UK.
To put the accommodation needs in perspective, the Equality and Human Rights Commission estimates that one square mile of land across England would provide enough authorised sites.
The Labour government has since called on local authorities to identify land suitable for sites and to build suitable accommodation for travellers.
This process has slowly been taking root across the country, accompanied by a number of scare stories in the tabloid press about compulsory purchase orders and travellers moving in on middle England.
Conservative-controlled authorities' reluctance to act in the spirit of this guidance was best illustrated by London Mayor Boris Johnson, who recently reduced the provision of sites in the London Plan from 538 to 238.
Originally travellers' groups had been pushing for 807 sites, the boroughs for 238.
In October Johnson accepted 538, but now the lower figure has been adopted.
The Tories' new green paper illustrates their desire to return to their early 1990s position on the travelling community.
The paper stresses a criminal justice approach, seeking to strengthen local authorities' powers to move travellers on, while removing any obligation to provide sites.
In a letter to The Conservative communities spokeswoman Caroline Spellman, Lord Eric Avebury warns: "If this document is used by Conservatives in local or national election campaigns, it will provoke community tensions, as occurred at the last general election when negative Conservative policies, less extreme than the present green paper, aroused great concern among Gypsies and travellers and an increase in racism in schools and the wider community."
But the Labour government, rather than standing its ground over this threat, has issued guidance on anti-social behaviour within the Gypsy and travelling community.
The guidance points to the use of Asbos, acceptable behaviour contracts and injunctions. It specifies particular offending behaviour such as fly-tipping, noise, straying livestock and untaxed vehicles.
The fact is that the travelling community is one of the most discriminated-against groups in British society.
Statistics show the community receiving second-class health care, limited educational opportunities and it has an over-representation among the prison population.
Some of the official data makes for shocking reading, with life expectancy among travellers 10 years less than for the settled population and self-reported mental illness standing at 19 per cent, compared with 9 per cent in the general population.
The travelling population also has the highest number of miscarriages among Britain's ethnic groups, with a rate of 29 per cent compared with 16 per cent for the general population.
Premature deaths of older offspring are 18 per cent, compared with 1 per cent for the general population.
There has been some progress over recent years to address some of the travelling community's problems, most notably over site provision and health care.
Slowly but surely the world of Gypsies and travellers is becoming better known to the wider community. It must be hoped that greater tolerance will follow.
What is not needed now is a gutter-based election campaign with political parties competing to see who can be toughest on one of the most marginalised groups in society. Pandering to prejudice and the desire of some to scapegoat minorities in order to win cheap votes will help no-one.
Read more of Paul Donovan's writing at www.paulfdonovan.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
