tessa jowell leaflets

[davidm]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23709177-details/Jowell+used+taxpayers%27+cash+to+pay+local+party/article.do

See attached article from the evening standard are we happy that taxpayers money is being used to produce leaflets for the labour party?

[????]

It would be nicer, if the dear chaps and chappesses from the Labour Party ever actually came round and knocked on our doors

[kpc]

Are these the leaflets/letters inviting us, the public, to tea/coffee meetings with Tessa Jowell - I've received at least a couple. The most recent also asked for views on local primary education (I think).

[Marmora Man]

It's a scam introduced by this government that gives more buying power to sitting MPs. ?10,000 a year for them to use to communicate with their constituents about what a good job they're doing a an MP. A typical Brown dodge that hurts the opposition parties (since they have less MPs drawing the allowance) and strengthens the government party.

Similarly, Brown's proposal to publish the earnings from any second jobs (regardless of whether it impinges on their parliamentary duties) and make all MPs account for the time spent on such second jobs. He really wants to outlaw all such "outside interests" - again as he sees it as a dividing line between Labour and the Tories. The likely impact is to promote even further the professional politician who has little experience or knowledge of life outside Westminster.

You'll also see sitting MPs using their "staff" allowance to employ people working in the local party association - mainly for "made up[" type jobs that leaves them free to campaign full time for the local party.

As someone supporting a PPC against an incumbent MP it seems unfair - we have to raise every penny we spend thru' coffee mornings, book sales, quiz nights, from our own pocket and from any donors we can interest (not many in the Camberwell & Peckham area - and getting fewer since revelations about expenses).

I don't mind that we are funding our own campaigning - but I do object to the fact that taxpayers are funding the opponent - Harriet Harman.

[AllforNun]

YOU GO TESSA !

[ruffers]

kpc Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Are these the leaflets/letters inviting us, the

> public, to tea/coffee meetings with Tessa Jowell -

> I've received at least a couple. The most recent

> also asked for views on local primary education (I

> think).

If so I have no problem with something encouraging us to engage with our local MP, regardless of party.

[Huguenot]

But then MM you'd be hoist by your own petard.

If this is indeed a political campaign, then so is yours.

Any campaign against funding for MPs biases representation to the independently wealthy, and those holding down jobs such as 'non-executive directorships' that require no effort.

A recipe for the country to be lead by wealthy toffs and the city elite, imposing Thatcherite ideals such as 'no society' that created the social fractures that so scare them now.

You lot'll be living in gated enclaves with private security and the rest of us will be in the mud outside.

It'll be a return to 1750.

[Huguenot]

So, of course, badgering your view whilst not offering one of my own is naughty.

My recommendation is to change the system to 'single transferable vote' - allowing voters to choose candidates by priority, rather than first past the post.

For those who aren't familiar, it means if your selected candidate comes bottom in the 'first past the post' election, your vote is distributed to your second choice candidate. After this cycle, the bottom candidate is again eliminated and the votes redistributed to existing candidates according to the next preference, and so on....

In this system you'd be far more likely to be elected if you were everyone's second choice, rather than by taking an extremist point of view that appeals to a limited audience, and hoping your audience will deliver a fractional majority.

It gets past the situation where a 'winner' may only have a third of the vote, meaning two thirds of the population don't want them but the vote is split.

It'll move us towards centrist candidates who represent their local people rather than a political party.

QED the government funding is spent on local issues, not to fund party agendas.

[Marmora Man]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But then MM you'd be hoist by your own petard.

>

> If this is indeed a political campaign, then so is

> yours.

>

> Any campaign against funding for MPs biases

> representation to the independently wealthy, and

> those holding down jobs such as 'non-executive

> directorships' that require no effort.

Hugenot - I can assure there are very few (read "none") independently wealthy in the Camberwell & Peckham Conservative Association! Don't forget also that the other major party - Labour uses the unions to provide many millions of pounds to fund its campaigns - balancing contributions from these mythical independently wealthy donors to the Consercatives. Of course the "take" on either side varies with the likelihood of that party gaining power and the acceptability of its policies.

I think it's right that unions, other organisations and individuals can choose to fund political parties. I think it's wrong that the taxpayer funds the "communications" of any sitting MPs of any party.

[Huguenot]

Ah, that's where we differ.

If a politician takes funding from these huge resources, they are strategically bound to legislate to their requirements.

Chuck in 'first past the post' and you've got a tinderbox.

It is a shame that the country has to be run on either a Marxist mandate, or a Thatcherite one, but never the middle ground.

It creates highly a highly polarised political environment that pays scant respect to the needs of the people.

BTW, you can take it as rote that I don't accept the concept of proportional representation either, as it divorces the ruling elite from the electorate.

I'm sorry if I implied that your grassroots outfit was filthy rich, but I would suggest that anyone you vote in would either have to be, or be the lapdog of someone who is, if politicians were personally funded.

[AllforNun]

"It is a shame that the country has to be run on either a Marxist mandate, or a Thatcherite one, but never the middle ground."

er middle ground being what, considering the amount of bans admin seems to be chucking around these days the middle ground seems to get very specific very quickly....so that's rye lane out of your little middle ground village then !

[Marmora Man]

Huguenot Wrote:

-----------------------------------------------------.

If a politician takes funding from these huge resources, they are strategically bound to legislate to their requirements.

I think this is debatable. Political parties set out their stall and ask the electorate to choose. The stall also attracts donors which enable the parties to make a more attractive stall. It is, theoretically, possible for one major donor to skew policy, but given no party is seeing really significant donors and that Barack Obama's model of using web technology to generate hundreds of thousands of small donations I don't think this is likely to be a problem going forward. If you look at the "single issue" parties funded by a few donors with specific agendas they haven't hqad much success. The3 Labour, Lib Dems and Tory parties are bigger than any one donor or group of donors.

Chuck in 'first past the post' and you've got a tinderbox.

FPTP gives certainty and allows "step changes" to policy and governments. The last such step change was probably in 1979 - the Blair / Brown governments evolving from the Conservative position rather than creating a radical break with the past. Your proposal for STV elections is, at first glance attractive, but what you see as advantages I see as dangers - danger of creating soft middle ground government where there is no real political meat to chew on. Elections become simply a way to choose an alternative set of managers rather than a government with a mandate for change[

It is a shame that the country has to be run on either a Marxist mandate, or a Thatcherite one, but never the middle ground.

The middle ground is not a good place to be - it used to be called "sitting on the fence"

It creates highly a highly polarised political environment that pays scant respect to the needs of the people.

I'd agree there is a lack of respect but not that we are living in a period of highly polarised politics. Both major parties are going to be massively constrained by the financial state of play. Labour would spend a little more and tax a little more, the Conservatives would spend a little less and tax a little less. As a right of centre man I'd prefer to see some more polarisation - more radical cuts in the public sector, a severe reduction in government bureaucracy and a commitment to a simpler, ideally flat rate, lower tax regime.

BTW, you can take it as rote that I don't accept the concept of proportional representation either, as it divorces the ruling elite from the electorate. Great - one point we are in 100% agreement.

I'm sorry if I implied that your grassroots outfit was filthy rich, but I would suggest that anyone you vote in would either have to be, or be the lapdog of someone who is, if politicians were personally funded. Our man is not personally funded and certainly not filthy rich.

[Huguenot]

"Elections become simply a way to choose an alternative set of managers rather than a government with a mandate for change"

Precisement, as they say in Peckham.

I guess I don't want government to be idealist. I'd like them to manage central funds to deliver services to the electorate.

I'd like them to consider both short and long term investments rationally according to the information on hand, and make decisions accordingly. I don't want them to have manifestos to 'shrink' this or 'develop' that. I'd like them to sit in a rather dull but in a worthwhile way firmly on that middle ground.

[AllforNun]

I'd like them to manage central funds to deliver services to the electorate.

er wow that's idealist, which contradicts your point about not wanting to be idealist !

Managers are basically the problem.

[Marmora Man]

I guess I don't want government to be idealist. I'd like them to manage central funds to deliver services to the electorate

Problem is that mediocre management leads to mediocrity. The Civil Service (if it can be purged of the politicisation of recent years) is meant to be the management arm of an Executive that leads, inspires and directs - using imagination and far sighted thinking. That's idealist I'd agree - but that's what I want.

[TJMP]

Going back to the original post, taxpayers money has not been used to produce leaflets for the Labour Party.

I purchased, at cost price, ink and blank paper that had been paid for by the Labour Party and I made use of a Freepost address to which constituents were able to return responses. None of the letters produced make any reference to the Labour Party or even the fact that I am a Labour MP. Using this method of printing letters and surveys meant that I was able to produce them at a cost per page of 0.65p. This is value that is simply not available for short-run printing in the commercial sector.

Details of all my claims and receipts including this specific item, with an example of the sort of letter produced, has been on my website for more than a month at: Details of Claims and Receipts under 'Lists of Suppliers'

If anyone would like to see a more detailed break-down of the costs incurred and the letters produced please PM me or email me at [email protected]

My response to the Evening Standard piece which was published on their website was as follows:

Like all MPs, I use my communications allowance for precisely the purpose for which it is intended - to communicate with my constituents about local issues.

Last year, I used only around half of my permitted allowance.

I was able to limit this expenditure because my local Labour Party provided printing and freepost services for letters to my constituents at a cheaper rate than I would have been able to obtain commercially.

The Labour Party made no profit from providing these materials at cost price and in using them I saved taxpayers money. None of the letters referred to, or in any way promoted, the Labour Party.

Producing letters at a cost of 0.65p each is extremely good value for money.

Full details of my allowances and some explanatory information is available, and has been for the last month, on my website at www.tessajowell.net/my-allowances

Tessa Jowell MP

[Marmora Man]

TJMP - you are being disingenuous.

Your constituents can hardly be unaware that you are the sitting Labour MP. Promotional materials communicating with those constituents about local issues always carries the subliminal message that it is being delivered by you - a Labour MP and Minister.

Your Conservative opponent, Kemi Adegoke, does not enjoy this tax payer funded advantage and must fund all promotional materials thru? her own pocket or by using funds raised by the Dulwich & Norwood Conservative Association. This creates an inbuilt bias toward sitting MPs - at a time when the general mood of the country is a desire to make it simpler to remove unsatisfactory sitting MPs.

[Brendan]

But once the conservatives are in power it will be good and proper for them to do the same.

[Marmora Man]

Brendan - no it won't. I oppose the communications allowance on principle, not because it's a Labour invention.

[Brendan]

Sorry about sounding snide there but if you worked in the office that I do you would understand.

I?m surrounded by some prominent members and a few quite vocal supporters of both parties and their incessant squabble drives me mad. I wouldn?t mind proper argument about how either of them can better serve the people but this disconnected bickering and point scoring stemming from lifelong indoctrination by parties turgid with dogma based on outdated ideology is of no good to anybody. They wouldn?t know what a normal member of the public was if it smacked them in the face, which may just happen one of these days.

[louisiana]

Can I refer people to the Diggers?

"The Council of State received a letter in April 1649 reporting that several individuals had begun to plant vegetables in common land on Saint George's Hill, Weybridge near Cobham, Surrey at a time when food prices reached an all-time high. Sanders reported that they had invited "all to come in and help them, and promise them meat, drink, and clothes." They intended to pull down all enclosures and cause the local populace to come and work with them. They claimed that their number would be several thousand within ten days. "It is feared they have some design in hand." In the same month, the Diggers issued their most famous pamphlet and manifesto, called "The True Levellers Standard Advanced"."

There are today still groups - online and in the flesh - who follow Winstanley's ideas.

The irony of the location of St George's Hill, Weybridge (that is today home to millionaires) is not lost on me.

[Marmora Man]

Louisiana, I hail from a non conformist "Society of FRiends" background - the Diggers and other political / societal organisations developed much of their origins from the early dissenters.

I have however, grown to believe in the power of modern liberal democratic capitalism as being, on the whole, the best force for good.

[Brendan]

Very sensible ideology and one I can see much merit in but as an enquiring individual I cannot see it ever being realised through the perpetuation of the current two party state.