Here is the webcast of yesterday's Council meeting.
I'm at 1.02 and 2.48
Here are the texts for both my speeches.
Corporate Plan 2011
The corporate plan is the vision of this Council, a framework for five years. I believe it should not be too specific but flexible. It is a work in progress.
I’d like to think at the bigger picture for a moment.
One of the reasons why I find difficult to speak in this chamber is that I’m not very party political.
I have loyalty, but more like that of a daughter, always ready to criticise her parents, and less willing to accept criticism from other places. Because, after all, I know them better.
I also feel that the best work is the work that comes out of scrutiny, the work that is the result of partnerships, with public, private and third sector, and the work done by citizens with their representatives.
There will always be specific interests and different ways of seeing the world.
But when people come together, they need to find something in common, a common ground to pursue the common good.
When I stand here, I have the strange sensation of being surrounded by political parties.
We become political animals, all divided up in our cages, so that we can align our views with that of our leaders and stop thinking for ourselves.
I’m not disputing the rules of representative democracy, yet.
But I’d like to appeal to the original ‘political animal’, the zoon politikon of Aristotle.
That animal is a human being that seeks relationships, that finds meaning in them.
So I want to ask every one of you, in the days and months to come, to forget the party line, and above all the assumptions political parties make about public services.
I don’t want my party to assume what I value most or what my constituents value most. I want an honest discussion in re-thinking the job of this council and our job.
I’m looking forward to the ‘What matters’ strategy and I hope that there will be ways for councillors to discuss what really matters outside this chamber and find common ground and pursue the common good.
Budget 2011
This budget shows that the transformation strategy is bearing its fruit.
I believe it was good not to do things in haste, but to do it properly.
I believe it was also good to set the wheels in motion early, in time for the challenges we are facing today.
It is however a difficult budget, and it’s not going to get any easier.
We should be under no illusion that the clock might turn back.
The welfare state, as it once was, is no longer.
It is changing fast and the role of the council has to change to reflect a changed reality.
I believe we have a duty to go beyond what we’ve always done.
We have a duty to form a partnership with our citizens.
This is the most important partnership of all.
It is not about finding efficiencies or delivering value for money.
It is about enabling people to do what they want to do, not about delivering the same services in the same way because we’ve always done it that way.
At this moment in time, this Council has a duty to show leadership.
Leadership is not about telling people what to do, but about telling them what they can do.
Local democracy is about instilling a sense of responsibility in people. This is our city, our environment and we have a responsibility for it.
The great society, as JFK called it, is nothing to do with what is being talked about in Whitehall. It is not privatisation or the nanny state. That vision of society is not about passing the ball to somebody else.
It is for every single one of us: councillor, resident, organisation, business.
It is a society built by citizens, for citizens.
25 February 2011
The Politics of Going Beyond Politics
I very rarely speak in the Council Chamber. It is not the place for honest exchange of views. Last night I spoke in the two debates: the Corporate Plan (the plan for the city) and the Budget. It was difficult to condense my thoughts in 2-3 minutes, which is what might have caused the consternation, confusion and support from across the benches. On the other hand, it might have been quoting Aristotle in the original greek :)
What I meant to say was that the role of government has changed radically. This should not mean that ‘there is no such thing as a society’, nor should it mean privatisation of services. It means that we need to create society anew.
We need to think of what people value rather than what services we are used to deliver. In my research, I see churches providing many services for the local community, which are paid and delivered by church members. I believe the Council should assist those efforts. I also believe private donors should help too.
When I said that I don’t want my party to assume what I value and what my constituents value, I meant that I don’t want them to think of services as they are delivered today but of what is actually needed and valued. We need to think of services as activities which might be delivered in a different way and in different places.
I said that we should forget our party lines because I can see the valuable work that happens in committees where councillors of all parties sit together. The job of rebuilding society anew is too big and too important for political point scoring.
Our most important allegiance is to the people out there, not the party.
It shouldn’t be about cutting costs or simply sharing the costs with others. It needs to be about re-framing public services together with people out there, together with organisations, individual citizens and businesses. I’m calling for councillors to work in cross-party groups, or task & finish groups, or whatever other way, leave their colours aside, and start thinking for real.
That is the zoon politikon, the political animal, of Aristotle.
(I'll try to upload the webcast when it becomes available)
What I meant to say was that the role of government has changed radically. This should not mean that ‘there is no such thing as a society’, nor should it mean privatisation of services. It means that we need to create society anew.
We need to think of what people value rather than what services we are used to deliver. In my research, I see churches providing many services for the local community, which are paid and delivered by church members. I believe the Council should assist those efforts. I also believe private donors should help too.
When I said that I don’t want my party to assume what I value and what my constituents value, I meant that I don’t want them to think of services as they are delivered today but of what is actually needed and valued. We need to think of services as activities which might be delivered in a different way and in different places.
I said that we should forget our party lines because I can see the valuable work that happens in committees where councillors of all parties sit together. The job of rebuilding society anew is too big and too important for political point scoring.
Our most important allegiance is to the people out there, not the party.
It shouldn’t be about cutting costs or simply sharing the costs with others. It needs to be about re-framing public services together with people out there, together with organisations, individual citizens and businesses. I’m calling for councillors to work in cross-party groups, or task & finish groups, or whatever other way, leave their colours aside, and start thinking for real.
That is the zoon politikon, the political animal, of Aristotle.
(I'll try to upload the webcast when it becomes available)
24 February 2011
Human rights are British values
Good for Ken Clarke for avoiding to take the populist stance. Instead he focussed rightly on how to make the European Court of Human Rights work properly. This doesn’t mean pandering to the worst sentiments of the population.
My grudge with MPs is that they don’t understand that their populist rhetoric (see last post) harms us all, even them. When governments lack popularity, they blame somebody else. So our enlightened government blame the judges and Brussels. They reclaim sovereignty without having clear what sovereignty actually means. If sovereignty is of the people then the people should decide, which makes the foundations of representative democracy shake. Beware of what you wish; it might just come back and bite.
The point of a representative democracy is to allow the building of consensus instead of the fragmentation of interests pursued with no regard for the interests of others. Decisions need to be taken at the most appropriate level. There’s no point in talking tough or soft on immigration, the environment and the economy on your own. These things don’t stop at our borders, therefore, close co-operation is essential. One of the most important factors in bringing the economy down was the lack of transparency and the low level regulation across Europe and especially in the UK and USA. The global economy is a fact; we need to make it work properly. No country subsists on its own.
Politicians blame Europe and, yet, we all like the fact that EU directives ensure the safety of our food. Indeed we demand better labelling of products. We like competition rules that are fair on consumers rather than favour specific companies (which is what nation states tend to push for!). We all like the fact that, if we have an accident, or we fall ill, or we need treatment for a chronic illness, and we are abroad (within the EU), we have free access to healthcare. Yet, we want Europe ‘off our backs’. I don’t. I want Europe to do more.
We might think the NHS as a ‘national treasure’, but there are differences between the health system in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland. People have been travelling across Europe shopping for better health treatments for sometimes. We need a set of patients’ rights that would apply across Europe.
There are people who commute regularly across countries. We need legislation to guarantee that they are not penalised. According to research, there are people counting the days they can spend in their country of birth meeting families not to incur into a change in the tax system. Legislation is for citizens, to protect them and enable them to carry on with their lives. It is not a badge of national pride.
This is because we have rights that derive from the dignity we give to being human. Human rights are not a kind concession of nation states, but a claim in front of any other party. Nation states exist in our minds and they might serve some purpose, but human beings exist in concrete reality. There will always be instances of plaintiffs who are vexatious and trying to make a point in court. There will be instances of judges getting it wrong and making uninspired or controversial decisions.
This is human nature. It does not invalidate the importance of human rights. It reminds us of our duty to make it work, not to brand it as foreign. This is where Blair and Cameron have been wrong when talking about ‘British values’. British values are European values and human values. If our own government can't grasp human rights, what hope have we got of delegitimising terrorism?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was born out of the ashes of the millions who died in the Second World War. They perished largely because of nationalism. Their deaths cause the international community to draft a declaration for the recognition of every one’s rights. Did they die in vain?
My grudge with MPs is that they don’t understand that their populist rhetoric (see last post) harms us all, even them. When governments lack popularity, they blame somebody else. So our enlightened government blame the judges and Brussels. They reclaim sovereignty without having clear what sovereignty actually means. If sovereignty is of the people then the people should decide, which makes the foundations of representative democracy shake. Beware of what you wish; it might just come back and bite.
The point of a representative democracy is to allow the building of consensus instead of the fragmentation of interests pursued with no regard for the interests of others. Decisions need to be taken at the most appropriate level. There’s no point in talking tough or soft on immigration, the environment and the economy on your own. These things don’t stop at our borders, therefore, close co-operation is essential. One of the most important factors in bringing the economy down was the lack of transparency and the low level regulation across Europe and especially in the UK and USA. The global economy is a fact; we need to make it work properly. No country subsists on its own.
Politicians blame Europe and, yet, we all like the fact that EU directives ensure the safety of our food. Indeed we demand better labelling of products. We like competition rules that are fair on consumers rather than favour specific companies (which is what nation states tend to push for!). We all like the fact that, if we have an accident, or we fall ill, or we need treatment for a chronic illness, and we are abroad (within the EU), we have free access to healthcare. Yet, we want Europe ‘off our backs’. I don’t. I want Europe to do more.
We might think the NHS as a ‘national treasure’, but there are differences between the health system in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland. People have been travelling across Europe shopping for better health treatments for sometimes. We need a set of patients’ rights that would apply across Europe.
There are people who commute regularly across countries. We need legislation to guarantee that they are not penalised. According to research, there are people counting the days they can spend in their country of birth meeting families not to incur into a change in the tax system. Legislation is for citizens, to protect them and enable them to carry on with their lives. It is not a badge of national pride.
This is because we have rights that derive from the dignity we give to being human. Human rights are not a kind concession of nation states, but a claim in front of any other party. Nation states exist in our minds and they might serve some purpose, but human beings exist in concrete reality. There will always be instances of plaintiffs who are vexatious and trying to make a point in court. There will be instances of judges getting it wrong and making uninspired or controversial decisions.
This is human nature. It does not invalidate the importance of human rights. It reminds us of our duty to make it work, not to brand it as foreign. This is where Blair and Cameron have been wrong when talking about ‘British values’. British values are European values and human values. If our own government can't grasp human rights, what hope have we got of delegitimising terrorism?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was born out of the ashes of the millions who died in the Second World War. They perished largely because of nationalism. Their deaths cause the international community to draft a declaration for the recognition of every one’s rights. Did they die in vain?
19 February 2011
We, the people, need no populism
It might be because public sector cuts are unpopular that politicians are resorting to the old vice of ignorant populism, but it is only a sign of immaturity. First was the opposition to the European Court of Human Rights’ decision on prisoners’ vote, then against the Supreme Court’s judgement on the sex offenders’ register, and let’s not mention forests.
It is quite remarkable how MPs seem unable to get their heads around rather simple facts. In the first case, the Court simply said that a blanket ban on voting for all prisoners, regardless of their sentence and crime, is wrong. I do believe that only people who are responsible for serious crime should be in prison. Unfortunately, as things stand, there are many people in prisons who have committed minor criminal offences. That is why they should not be denied their right to vote. Indeed, they should not be denied their personal freedom, but that’s for another debate.
In the second case, the UK Supreme Court ruled that sex offenders should have the right to appeal to be taken off the register. Why should people be judged and labelled for the rest of their lives regardless of whether they have served the sentenced and are no longer a danger to the community? The government, by branding this judgement as being about paedophiles, are pandering to the fears and emotions of people. The abuse of children is appalling. So is the abuse of elderly people, actually. But I don’t think that certain crimes should mark you for life. I believe people responsible for serious crimes should be punished. I also believe that they should be re-educated. Prisons should not be about creating bogey-men and locking away the sins of society.
It is often the case that those who have committed offences suffer from mental illness; and paedophiles have often been abused themselves. They should still be punished, but they should also be rehabilitated. In Canada, there is a scheme that includes released paedophiles in the community. Volunteers give up their time to spend it with the paedophile, form a relationship of trust, which deters further crime. This scheme has reduced the reoffending rate by 70%. This is justice that keeps people safe.
The naming and shaming policy of the UK government is vengeance, not justice. Nigel Farage and the eurosceptics’ brigade complained that this is giving up sovereignty from the UK Parliament to Europe. Aside from the fact that this is a judgement from the UK Supreme Court, the last people I want deciding on justice cases are MPs. The recent appalling populism and inability to understand the issue is precisely why elected politicians should not review cases. Justice should not be subject to populist gestures, or decisions by opinionated windbags. Justice requires the expertise, fairness and wisdom, which are in scarce supply in the House of Commons.
The worst part of all this distasteful populism is that it treats us, the public, as a rabid xenophobic and vengeful mob. We are not. We believe that human beings have inalienable rights that are not the gentle concession of Parliament, but inherent part of being human. We have duties towards each other and the community at large, and if we breach them, we should make amends. We should be punished, we should give back to the community, but never stop being part of it. We, the people, have some moral decency.
It is quite remarkable how MPs seem unable to get their heads around rather simple facts. In the first case, the Court simply said that a blanket ban on voting for all prisoners, regardless of their sentence and crime, is wrong. I do believe that only people who are responsible for serious crime should be in prison. Unfortunately, as things stand, there are many people in prisons who have committed minor criminal offences. That is why they should not be denied their right to vote. Indeed, they should not be denied their personal freedom, but that’s for another debate.
In the second case, the UK Supreme Court ruled that sex offenders should have the right to appeal to be taken off the register. Why should people be judged and labelled for the rest of their lives regardless of whether they have served the sentenced and are no longer a danger to the community? The government, by branding this judgement as being about paedophiles, are pandering to the fears and emotions of people. The abuse of children is appalling. So is the abuse of elderly people, actually. But I don’t think that certain crimes should mark you for life. I believe people responsible for serious crimes should be punished. I also believe that they should be re-educated. Prisons should not be about creating bogey-men and locking away the sins of society.
It is often the case that those who have committed offences suffer from mental illness; and paedophiles have often been abused themselves. They should still be punished, but they should also be rehabilitated. In Canada, there is a scheme that includes released paedophiles in the community. Volunteers give up their time to spend it with the paedophile, form a relationship of trust, which deters further crime. This scheme has reduced the reoffending rate by 70%. This is justice that keeps people safe.
The naming and shaming policy of the UK government is vengeance, not justice. Nigel Farage and the eurosceptics’ brigade complained that this is giving up sovereignty from the UK Parliament to Europe. Aside from the fact that this is a judgement from the UK Supreme Court, the last people I want deciding on justice cases are MPs. The recent appalling populism and inability to understand the issue is precisely why elected politicians should not review cases. Justice should not be subject to populist gestures, or decisions by opinionated windbags. Justice requires the expertise, fairness and wisdom, which are in scarce supply in the House of Commons.
The worst part of all this distasteful populism is that it treats us, the public, as a rabid xenophobic and vengeful mob. We are not. We believe that human beings have inalienable rights that are not the gentle concession of Parliament, but inherent part of being human. We have duties towards each other and the community at large, and if we breach them, we should make amends. We should be punished, we should give back to the community, but never stop being part of it. We, the people, have some moral decency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)