Quite agree , it was a stupid article from moonbat.Hazel Blears is one of the few Labour MPs who has any voice at all outside Labour .The extent to which Labour need more Blears and less Moonbat is shown by the ICM Poll details

‘Labour collapse is most pronounced amongst men.
The Lib Dems are actually ahead of Labour amongst C1s (LD 25%, Lab 23%), and are on 31% amongst 18-24 year olds who are certain to vote, and at 23% amongst 25-24 year olds and 23% amongst ABs. The Lib Dems are also polling 26% in the North compared to 18% in both the north and the south – core Labour support is shifting here to the Lib Dems.

Also of interest
(In terms of social class, the Conservatives now have a lead of 18 points amongst the C1s (41 : 23), 24 points amongst the C2s (49 : 25) and, more modestly, 11 points with ABs (40 : 29) and 3 with the DEs (37 : 34).)

I just mention this because I am increasingly appalled at the attitude of Lib Dems on this blog which is of obeisance to New Labour . Time to cut the apron strings , I see the Liberals party as the main opposition of the next century but if they persist in this invertebrate Labour lite attitude they will stay the also rans .Liberals do you have the cojones or not ?

“Now whether you agree with Hazel Blears on any or all of the above, you get a very different impression of her record as a parliamentarian than you do if you only look at the list of issues that TheyWorkForYou and PublicWhip track”
Hmm, not really Don, in that she hasn’t deviated from the party line on those issues either. the only time she has was when an almighty uproar occurred in her constituency about health, and that was plain self-interest. Blears basically just loves telling people what they should be doing, but without any coherent strategy, thinking,or principles let alone expertise or experience. If she individually had principles , then surely sooner or later they would lead her to at some point, over some division, however piddling, be at variance with the party line, but she never shows this. Aye there’s cabinet responsibility, but it’s funny how when they want to, some cabinet members can express disagreement with Brown…. All is always for the best in the best of all New Labour worlds to her.

New Labour has principles, yup, to get elected. No real ideology, as they swallowed that whole end of ideology schtick, and are now rudderless. so are the Tories, but that can’t mask the fact that New Labour and that does include all of the current cabinet, renounced Old Lab and its principles (moral or mistaken, at least it had them) and adopted the bullshitty “whatever works” nonsense relativism of Blair, which by justifying damn nearall means, embraces twisted outcomes. Liberties should not be sacrificed, torture and rendition should not be outrages not covertly accepted, profit should not be made out of misery.
Blears’ principles amount to whatever keeps her in power, and if those principles need to change, so they shall, with the sole constant being the pursuit of power and exercising ever more authority: what is the principle behind draconian surveillance, monitoring and ID cards etc? I’d like to know because the stated justification for ID cards seems to shift every month.
Look I’ll even wager that half of the PLP read Monbiot’s piece and smiled a secret smile, one not to be seen in public.

An interesting post this. I am up for anything which strengthens communities.

sorry to go a bit offbeam…but the idea of a group activity and the enormous success of Obama’s style of campaigning led me to:

>>>About Virgance [[[[[[[[[[[[http://www.virgance.com/]]]]]]]]
Virgance is a for-profit company that takes new activism ideas and uses the power of online social networks to scale each idea into a large-scale, citizen-powered global campaign to improve the world.

……….via an article in the Economist mag.

“The Economist reported in a recent article about Virgance, a San Francisco start-up that wants to make a profit through political activism.”

Everyone does good things Don, and perhaps they should be more lauded than they are for that, but the key with politicians is what they’re not doing right, and whether or not in not doing it right they are actually doing terrible wrongs.

This is the case with Hazel, yes she voted for a lot of positive things in the past (as well as some negative) all along the party line. Ehile the things that Labour were putting forward were improving the NHS, helping the impoverished (see how that worked out though), minimum wage, etc, etc….this was great. But what government do we have now for her to tow the party line with? More draconian drug laws, decreased liberties, increased surveilance, increased spending on both the former, increased powers of the state and, in the latest case to go to the house, erosion of privacy and personal control of said right.

To claim that George is corrosive is, perhaps, true…but that doesn’t make Hazel’s claim any less hypocritical, and funny given it seems to be her current tactic to call people who disagree with her and her government names like “cynical” and “unhelpful”, etc. She isn’t helping politics, she isn’t even helping race relations by reporting as she did on “white working classes” in an effort to set that up as something Labour can be strong on come elections.

So yeah…she’s done good in the past, but the road to hell is, after all, paved with good intentions.

Monbiot and Blears have somewhat different experiences of life. Monbiot comes from a comfortable background and seems very concerned about what is happening in many parts of the World.I expect Monbiot’s experience of growing up or living in a run down council estate in Salford somewhat limited. Blear’s has an intuitive understanding of the concerns of the working class, which over the next few years is mostly going to be focused on putting food on the table, clothes on the childrens’ backs and a roof over their heads. Monbiot’s idealism is wonderful if one can afford it. If we are to prevent the rise of the BNP , then we need politicians to whom the working and lower middle classes can emotionally connect – Blears fits this description, Monbiot does not. In many cases, working class people from industrial parts of Britain have a traditional or one might say conservative view of life; after all, who joins the Armed Forces . It would be interesting to know which in which canteens, in which factories or construction sites , The Guardian is read in preference to the Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Express or Daily Mail. If Labour believe environmental , cultural and identity politics are more important than economic issues to the working and lower middle classes in the industrial parts of the UK , over the next few years , then they will lose votes to the BNP.

Monbiot obviously writes well. Monbiot would be far more persuasive if he developed technology which would improve the situation. Perhaps Monbiot should return to university and study for a degree in electrical or mechanical engineering.

Hmmm.. this is a tricky one.

1) I think we need a more sophisticated tool to rate MPs on the basis of their voting records. The suggestions you make are quite good Don. Did you run that on TWFY? I’d like to know if its possible to run a customised set of criteria on voting records.

I’ve talked about this before on LC and I also approached Tom Steinberg of MySociety about it – there has to be a way to rate MPs on their voting records, more sophisticated than what exists now.

If anyone has more thoughts on this, would love to hear them.

And while I instinctively agree with Hopi Sen (and yours) arguments, the problem is that Hazel Blears isn’t just the right candidate to hold up on the other side.

What was the universal response to her Communities in Control paper? Derision. It was mostly vacuous and full of platitudes rather than solid suggestions that would be taken forward. To that extent, whatever Monbiot says about her isn’t untrue.

It may not apply to other MPs, and his terms of reference are narrow, but I find it difficult to defend her.

Sorry Don, but:

“You remained silent while the government endorsed the kidnap and the torture of innocent people; blocked a ceasefire in Lebanon and backed a dictator in Uzbekistan who boils his prisoners to death. You voiced no public concern while it instructed the Serious Fraud Office to drop the corruption case against BAE, announced a policy of pre-emptive nuclear war, signed a one-sided extradition treaty with the United States and left our citizens to languish in Guantánamo Bay. You remained loyal while it oversaw the stealthy privatisation of our public services and the collapse of Britain’s social housing programme, closed hundreds of post offices and shifted taxation from the rich to the poor. What exactly do you stand for Hazel, except election?”

Leaves Blears pretty thoroughly and decisively pwned. Only a firm nationalist could say that supporting Uzbek tyrants and thwarting justice over shady deals don’t matter & even a firm nationalist would realise that the craven Atlanticism of allowing America do as it would with British citizens detained without trial in America was a bad call.

Differences may remain, but Labour are easily close enough to the Tories to be utterly foul.

What James said.

Hold on now Jennie, you’d best let me amend a paragraph first:

“Leaves Blears pretty thoroughly and decisively pwned. Only a firm nationalist could say that supporting Uzbek tyrants and thwarting justice over shady deals don’t matter was reprehensible & even a firm nationalist would realise that the craven Atlanticism of allowing America do as it would with British citizens detained without trial in Guantanamo was a bad call.”

Still good?

Aye, think so.

Shit, in your blog title it may well be; but I still keep forgetting you’re from Yorkshire…

He won’t get a reply to this; not a thorough one, at least. The government knows perfectly well that its own record is indefensible.

@ Charlie – 6

Are you taking the piss?

Blears wouldn’t know what working-class was if it hit her in the face with a 19″ penis!

The woman is a moron!

Her ‘working-class supporting the BNP’ bullshit was a made up survey which used 43 interviewees! Just because she “represents” Salford does not make her any better knowing what working-class people want. I wish that there were 100% more profanity and expletives in the English language just for her.

I think the best way of describing Blears was a mate of mine from Salford – who, funnily enough, is called Charlie – he said “She is a more of a fish-wife than a fish-wife, she is better listening to gossip than intellectual conversation, she is a cricket fan while watching lawn darts and wondering when the bowler is going to throw the ball”.

Hazel Blears in the cabinet is like having a goose trying to be a hummingbird.

“If anyone has more thoughts on this, would love to hear them.”

Why can’t various bills that get passed be pigeonholed in to categories on publicwhip upon entry to the site, and therefore automatically tally each MPs record per subject?

I don’t take too much notice of the various indicators of voting record and I’m unsure whether they can be improved greatly. The instrinsic problem of these indicators is that they produce statements like “strongly in favour of XXXXX” which implies that your MP has thought about an issue and formed a strong opinion about it: in reality it is quite likely that your MP has voted consistently one way because they have been told to and is incapable of explaining why they support that position except to read off a list of talking points that they have been given.An MP who is described as being “moderately in favour of XXXXX” might either have a well-thought out position in which they are in favour of some aspects of X and not others, or they may have performed an inexplicable U-turn.

Blears frequently says that she is accountable and journalists aren’t. What she means by that is that she is elected and journalists aren’t. However Blears is hopeless at accounting for her policies, which is what Monbiot is driving at, I think. The invasion of Iraq is only the worst example of a general trend: actions and policies for which the justifications are weak, confused, contradictory or are based on assumptions and assertions that turn out to be untrue. As Monbiot says in his article, there is a consistency in Blears voting record but it is unclear what principles that is based on (as many of the stated justifications are refutable or have been proved to be false). I don’t think that tweaking the indicators of voting record is really relevant: the problem is a corrosive political culture where politicians are unable to account for their actions (and are able to survive without being held to accont).

Sunny wrote:

1) I think we need a more sophisticated tool to rate MPs on the basis of their voting records.

The world awaits someone to set one up and fund its operation. In fact, all or most of MySociety’s stuff is open source, so you can quite easily submit modifications to it if you think that it could be improved (or organise other people to do so).

Back to the original post: “But David Cameron is much worse” isn’t a ringing endorsement of Hazel Blears, which donpaskini has carefully avoided making. We all know that David Cameron is promoting policies we don’t like and voting against the ones that we do. We know this because he’s a Tory and that’s what Tories do. If the best defence of Hazel Blears is that, on at least some issues, she’s to the left of the leader of the Conservative Party then I don’t see much to recommend her.

As James pointed out, the strongest part of Monbiot’s piece was on those votes where clear moral issues – support of dictatorships, covering up corruption cases – were being voted on. On many of the other policies (e.g. welfare reform, reduction in child poverty) the votes were more about means than ends and it would be hard to deduce a person’s moral character or ‘courage’ from whether or not they support welfare reform in quite the same way as it is over whether they support the Uzbek government or sanction bribery.

At best, Blears (and most of the current cabinet) can be said to have backed some decent policies during their time in office. Improvements in funding for public services have been valuable, and the first-term New Labour government may well go down in history as one of the best of the 20th century. From then on, it has all been downhill and there has been a conspicious lack of those virtues of courage that Hazel Blears seems to think that she possesses in such quantities. I don’t see anything courageous in backing a handful of broadly left-wing policies whilst simultaneously going ahead with a considerable number of right-wing authoritarian ones. To claim that this is courageous in any way is an insult to people who have shown real courage in battling some of the things that Blears & co. seem perfectly happy to support.

“To claim that this is courageous in any way is an insult to people who have shown real courage in battling some of the things that Blears & co. seem perfectly happy to support.”

On an entirely unrelated note: isn’t John MacDonnell awesome? And isn’t it a pity that Robin Cook isn’t still with us?

Improvements in funding for public services have been valuable,

Only if the improved funding has proportionately improved public services.

Blear’s has an intuitive understanding of the concerns of the working class, which over the next few years is mostly going to be focused on putting food on the table, clothes on the childrens’ backs and a roof over their heads.

Rather than databases covering our travel, communications, and occasions on which we prove our identity, detention without charge etc… …so why are they the headline policies?

ukliberty wrote:

Only if the improved funding has proportionately improved public services.

Hey, I was being charitable.

Actually, I suspect that increases in health/education funding probably have led to reasonably good improvements (certainly in health). The bigger problem is big increases in spending on things that nobody really wants.

Brilliant, Don. Nice work – precisely what I’ve always thought about TWFY. Incidentally the same is true for free votes on ‘moral issues’ – I think council housing is a moral issue, so could I defy the whips? Could I heck.

Sunny,
“What was the universal response to her Communities in Control paper? Derision. It was mostly vacuous and full of platitudes rather than solid suggestions that would be taken forward.”

That’s not what I remember.

The derision was to the way she failed to promote the good things in it and undermined support for them with her partisan approach.

Remember it was not ‘her’ white paper – it was a cross-party effort which she then had responsibility to push through as minister. It obviously conflicted with her partisan interests so she did her best to put a brave face on her duties while discouraging at every turn any implementation.

Why would you say such a blatantly untrue thing?

Charlie wrote:

“I expect Monbiot’s experience of growing up or living in a run down council estate in Salford somewhat limited. Blear’s has an intuitive understanding of the concerns of the working class, which over the next few years is mostly going to be focused on putting food on the table, clothes on the childrens’ backs and a roof over their heads. Monbiot’s idealism is wonderful if one can afford it.”

Whatever legitimate point might be made here, this is extremely patronising to working-class people.

Working people can and do exhibit idealism, often a great deal more than those who could afford it.

And not wishing to visit mass death on the people of another country is not an act of idealistic frippery.

Iraq also has a working class, by the way, one which Blears did her part to ensure will have serious difficulty getting food on their tables, clothes for their children and roofs over their heads for many, many years to come. Concern for the fate of Iraqis and the responsibilty that we – and you – have for them is not some middle class hobby, and nor is concern for the other issues Monbiot mentioned.

“Blears wouldn’t know what working-class was if it hit her in the face with a 19? penis! ”

An image no-one needs.

Newmania @1, which Lib Dems are you talking about here?? I spend much of my mental energy hating what New Labour have done in the same way an older generation hated what the Tories did. And I’m not aware of any Lib Dems hereabouts who are that much softer than me.

The Epic Voyage of Hazel Blears

Hazel Blears is a Reagan/Thatcher tax rebel and her foreign policy is nothing but violent paranoia. She’s a flaming neo-con who would feel right at home with the Project for a New American Century, and the only real mystery about her is her British passport.

This is a small mystery, but still worth solving, or at least disappearing, by seizing her passport and dropping her on one of those small boats from Senegal that are always trying to land in Las Canares.

After four or five weeks of sunshine in an open boat, Hazel wouldn’t even be white, and without that cornerstone of her identity, the rest of it would dissolve like smoke.

Despite the fact that I think very little of Cameron I can’t help but be annoyed by your obvious framing of the for / against “reducing child poverty”. By using this sort of crass presentation you suggest that Cameron is an evil, child hating SOB when his reasons for voting against are not explained. However they are far more likely to be that he saw the propsed legislation as a wastful, counterproductive exercise than because he wants children to be poor.

Frame the question differently and you would have Hazel voting strongly for “micturating money up against the wall”. A reasonable take on it? No, but no better than the other way round.

As Falco says, there are some fairly obvious problems with these measures that try to use MP’s voting record to some up the views of an MP. Monbiot’s main point was that many MPs (such as Blears) are unable to explain their actions: he used Blear’s voting record to point out that she has voted for some fairly extreme things (locking people up without trial, ignoring international law) but nowhere can you find an explanation of what her principles are and how they are linked to what she has voted for.

I’m a bit surprised that people on Liberal Conspiracy haven’t picked this up. A liberal-left alliance will need to base itself around holding our representatives to account for their actions, getting them away from spin and making them align their actions with clear principles. Monbiot’s main point is important and voting record indicators are a tangent to that issue.

Thanks to everyone for comments. Just to be clear, I wasn’t aiming to defend Hazel Blears or do a why the Labour government is awesome and the Tories are evil post. Instead I’m interested in how t’internet can help people find out more easily information about their elected representatives and the differences between the parties.

Quickfire round:

2 – Blears does have principles beyond just getting elected. I disagree with them, but it is a perfectly reasonable political strategy for actually getting stuff done to be publicly loyal to the leadership and keep disagreements private.

5 – yes, fair point.

8 – agree with a lot of that, but do read Hopi Sen’s post for the counter-argument.

14 – n.b. if you want to criticise a politician, calling her a ‘fishwife’ says more about you than them.

17 – generally agree, but I don’t like the distinction between ‘moral issues’ such as foreign policy, and issues like welfare reform and child poverty.

18 – yes and yes

23 – glad you liked it. agree completely about council housing being a moral issue.

28 – you’re right that it’s hard to summarise any issue in a way that is entirely impartial, I was copying the style of TheyWorkForYou. But on the specific, the measures that Hazel Blears voted for did reduce child poverty, and David Cameron voted against them, regardless of why he did so. After all, our government thought that light touch regulation of the bankers would help make us all richer and that invading Iraq would get rid of weapons of mass destruction, it’s worth holding people to account for the results of their actions, not just their intentions, right?

29 – for all its flaws, TWFY provides useful info to help people hold their reps to account. Would indeed be good if it were combined with other kinds of information, of course.

don – had a chat with Tom from Mysociety about this today, and it seems this can be done fairly easily.

The trick is to first establish the criteria… and then list all the votes that relate to the criteria.

So for example, which bills and which votes would relate to ‘civil liberties’ for example… and so on. And then we can start rating MPs once we know which bills need to be included in the questionnaire.

Does this make sense (I’ve not had much sleep)

So for example, which bills and which votes would relate to ‘civil liberties’ for example… and so on. And then we can start rating MPs once we know which bills need to be included in the questionnaire.

Does this make sense (I’ve not had much sleep)

Yes. But there are a lot!

Hi Sunny,

That sounds good – a project for the next few months, perhaps?

donpaskini:

On the “reduction of child poverty” front. Which bill(s), relative or absolute poverty and on what evidence?

Re the banks: Are you kidding? The regulation in place was a horrendous and largely useless box ticking exercise but it was by no measure “light touch”.

Re Iraq: Dear Tony lied and knew damn well that he was doing so. Intentions do matter.

The substance of my previous comment was not that it’s “hard to summarise any issue in a way that is entirely impartial” but that the way it was set out was a quite deliberate hatchet job. As I said before, I have no great regard for Cameron or any parliamentarians bar a very few but the way you frame a debate makes a great impact:

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?