Josh Babarinde makes progress with his campaign for a separate domestic abuse offence

Embed from Getty Images

The Guardian has slapped an "Exclusive" label on its report that Josh Babarinde has called for a specific defence of domestic violence to be introduced.

This is a bad case of overselling, given that he appeared on Good Morning on 10 December to talk about the idea.

But there are encouraging developments in the report. Josh says he has received support from both Labour and Conservative MPs, and its claims that:

Officials are examining whether to change the way domestic violence crimes are recorded after a campaign by an MP who says the lack of a specific offence allows abusers to be freed early from jail.

The quote from a Ministry of Justice spokesperson at the end is less definite than this:

"Domestic abuse comes in many forms, not just physical. Under the current system, domestic abusers already face longer sentences as it is considered an aggravating factor in sentencing for a wide range of offences. However, the independent review of sentencing, led by David Gauke, has been tasked with looking at how best to address crimes of violence against women and girls in future."

The other day I heard David Blunkett quoted as saying this government has "hit the ground reviewing," but let's hope something good comes of this one.

Josh spoked movingly to the Guardian about his own childhood, saying he recalls violence as creating a "really lonely" home life: 

"I would be upstairs in my room hearing an argument unfold, voices raised, shouts, screams, things smashed, and I would pull my covers over me and just sit crying. I didn’t know if my mum was OK."

Pointless offers a warning to Change UK

Embed from Getty Images

Change UK - or the Tiggers, as I still think of them - announced their Euro candidates today.

There are some names I recognise, notably the former Conservative cabinet minister Stephen Dorrell.

I note, however, that he is standing in the West Midlands rather than the East Midlands, where he was an MP for 36 years.

With Dorrell and a few other people we politicos have heard of - Rachel Johnson, Gavin Esler - the Tiggers must be feeling pleased with themselves.

But they should not feel too pleased.

Last year I pointed out how little most people know about politics:

Pointless is almost a mirror image of Family Fortunes, which rewarded contestants for being average not for being clever. 

Yet there are two subjects where Pointless contestants generally know little and find the thought they might know something to be so unreasonable as to be amusing. 

One is British politics and the other is geography.

After I had posted that, "the admirable Alwyn Turner" sent me the link to a post he had written in 2013.

It was about a round in Pointless that year where 100 people had been asked to name as many politicians as they could remember who had served in the Labour cabinets of either Tony Blair or Gordon Brown. That is, any cabinet member between 1997 and 2010:

Top of the list was John Prescott, named by just 15 out of the 100 people. 

Then came: Ed Miliband - 13 out of 100 

Ed Balls -13 out of 100 

David Miliband - 12 out of 100 

Jack Straw - 7 out of 100 

Alistair Darling - 7 out of 100 

Peter Mandelson - 4 out of 100 

David Blunkett - 4 out of 100 

Clare Short - 2 out of 100 

Mo Mowlam - 1 out of 100 

Margaret Beckett - 1 out of 100 

We never found out whether my nominee, Ivor Richard, made it into the pointless category, because there were simply too many names to go through. But amongst those who rated not a single mention were: Andrew Adonis, Andy Burnham, Jack Cunningham, Charlie Falconer, Patricia Hewitt, Derry Irvine, Donald Dewar, Frank Dobson, Geoff Hoon, Margaret Jay, Alan Milburn and James Purnell.

So, as I say, the Tiggers should not feel to pleased with themselves tonight.

Incidentally, this second post was quoted without attribution on the Today programme by a Leading Political Commentator, who unfollowed me on Twitter when I pointed this out.

But I'm not bitter.

How New Labour's tough rhetoric on immigration boosted the right

Embed from Getty Images

Under Jeremy Corbyn, as I wrote at the start of the month, Labour has quite moderate policies but does its very best so sound like far-left party.

Under Tony Blair, by contrast Labour had progressive social policies but did its best to sound right wing.

I am reminded of this contrast by an article in Prospect by Steve Bloomfield, who writes about the Blair government's rhetoric on immigration:

Under Tony Blair, New Labour passed five migration-related bills between 1997 and 2007. Each one was about making it harder for refugees and immigrants to live here. Each one was accompanied by a wave of dehumanising language in the media and political sphere. 

One of the first pieces of legislation removed benefits from asylum seekers, replacing money with vouchers. These vouchers could only be spent on what the government deemed “essential” - something that didn’t include razors or toothpaste. Shops were banned from giving change, which meant parts of the already meagre allowance often went spent. 

During this period, Labour liked to split asylum seekers up into “genuine” and “bogus.” The phrase “bogus asylum seeker” became so prevalent it was even used, without quote marks, in BBC news reports.

He goes on to chronicle the growing extremism of the rhetoric used by successive Labour home secretaries in this period - David Blunkett, Charles Clarke, John Reid - until the last-named was telling us that "foreigners come to this country illegitimately and steal our benefits".

Go back to the source of this quote and you will find that Reid was condemned by Nick Clegg, God bless him.

All this went on while people from Europe were coming to work in Britain in unprecedented numbers.

Did Labour's approach do anything to calm public concern about immigration?

Bloomfield says not:

Ipsos Mori’s poll in 2008 showed that just 5 per cent of voters who thought immigration was important trusted Labour. The Conservatives were on 46 per cent ... 

"Tough" immigration policies, i.e. those that treated people fleeing terror as if they should be feared rather than helped, not only failed to improve Labour's standing, it normalised dehumanising language and policies. The debate wasn't, "should we help refugees and migrants?" Instead, it was "how best can we stop them causing damage?" And when those are the terms of the debate, the far-right will always be "tougher."

This seems right to me. I would add that liberal politicians should talk about the economic advantages that immigration brings - too often we just get sermons on multiculturalism.

And where immigration causes local problems, such as pressure for school places, those liberal politicians should be honest about this and be seen to be providing the extra resources that local authorities need.

Chapter and verse from Pointless on how little interest most people take in politics

Embed from Getty Images

A couple of days ago I wrote that the television quiz Pointless reminds us how little most people know about politics.

After I had done so, the admirable Alwyn Turner sent me the link to a post he wrote back in 2013 making the same point:

An edition of the TV game show Pointless this week had a round based on 100 people naming as many politicians as they could remember who had served in the Labour cabinets of either Tony Blair or Gordon Brown. That is, any cabinet member between 1997 and 2010 ...

It's not a scientifically selected sample, but even so the results suggest just how completely uninterested in politics the public are.

Top of the list was John Prescott, named by just 15 out of the 100 people. Then came:

Ed Miliband - 13 out of 100
Ed Balls - 13 out of 100
David Miliband - 12 out of 100
Jack Straw - 7 out of 100
Alistair Darling - 7 out of 100
Peter Mandelson - 4 out of 100
David Blunkett - 4 out of 100
Clare Short - 2 out of 100
Mo Mowlam - 1 out of 100
Margaret Beckett - 1 out of 100 

We never found out whether my nominee, Ivor Richard, made it into the pointless category, because there were simply too many names to go through. But amongst those who rated not a single mention were: Andrew Adonis, Andy Burnham, Jack Cunningham, Charlie Falconer, Patricia Hewitt, Derry Irvine, Donald Dewar, Frank Dobson, Geoff Hoon, Margaret Jay, Alan Milburn and James Purnell.

Alwyn rounded off his post by quoting from Pamela Hansford Johnson's 1962 novel An Error of Judgement:

"Could it really be that I am the only person in the world bored stiff, bored pallid, by politics?" a character asks, and is immediately put straight by another: "'No, we all are, those of us who aren't politicians. That's why we're the prey of the silly men, the posturing men. They don't get bored, not ever. We are the victims of their professional excitement."

Simon Hughes on the Tory and Labour arms race on prisons

#456631330 / gettyimages.com

Speaking to a CentreForum and Prison Reform Trust event today Simon Hughes said:

The sad reality is that the political consensus needed for real reform remains the victim of an arms race between the two largest parties on who can sound toughest on law and order. 

Michael Howard’s 1993 declaration that ‘prison works’, contrary to all the evidence in so many cases of course, became an ideology which was then enthusiastically embraced by Labour Home and Justice Secretaries including Jack Straw, David Blunkett and John Reid. 

That misguided consensus has been directly responsible for a near doubling of the prison population: from about 44,000 in the early 1990s to the 84,656 people in prison at the end of last week.

You can read the whole speech on Simon's own website.

Simon Titley the blogger

While we mourn Simon Titley, we should remember that he was at one time a considerable blogger.

The Liberal Dissenter flourished in 2004 and 2005.

Here is Simon writing on the fall of David Blunkett in November 2005:

Amid all the media comment about David Blunkett's departure from office last week has been an unpleasant recurring theme. Apparently the man had ideas above his station. 

Aren't there enough legitimate political reasons for opposing Blunkett, principally his instinctive authoritarianism? Instead, there has been a litany of snobbish remarks to the effect that a man who is not only working class in origin but also from the north should have had the temerity to visit the Mayfair nightclub Annabel's.

Why Michael Gove is preferable to David Blunkett or Estelle Morris

A few days ago Michael Gove announced that he is to scrap the regulations for school homework that David Blunkett introduced in 1998. I happen to have in front of me a Liberal Democrat News piece that I wrote that year. It was published on 16 October 1998.

This was a time when New Labour claimed to speak for the whole nation and accused anyone who disagreed with him of "cynicsm" - as though you could not have not have an honourable motive for disagreeing them.

So David Blunkett had recently talked about a "miserable bunch of sneering cynics" who opposed his policies. And Chris Whitehead, then the Chief Inspector of Schools, had added:

"I hope by the time we reach the millennium we shall have beaten the cynics and sneerers who rightly anger and depress David Blunkett."

And the Guardian report of Woodhead's speech began:

Chris Woodhead last night pledged to rid the teaching profession of the 'sneering cynics' criticised by the Education and Employment Secretary David Blunkett.

In my article I went on:

An irrational hatred of anyone who voices ideas which differ from government policy can be found throughout the new establishment. 

The other week a couple of educational psychologists published some research from Australia and New Zealand which cast doubt on the usefulness of giving children in primary schools. 

They also turned up a Board of Education report from 1937 which recommended a reduction in homework and none at all for children under 12. 

Did this new research lead to an informed debate? Just read the press cuttings. 

The Education Minister Estelle Morris said: "I totally disagree; there hasn't been a piece of research that I so fundamentally disagree with. I'm very disappointed with the conclusion of this report." 

Nick Seaton, from something called the Campaign for Real Education, said: "This will appeal to teachers who don't want to do any work." 

But the prize for the most considered response must to to Tino Perri from the education union NAS/UWT. He said, of Dr Richard Cowan, the prime author of the research: "He doesn't know what he is talking about, he's talking though a hole in his head."

Now, says the BBC reporting Gove's decision:

Head teachers in England are to be given greater discretion over how much homework their pupils are set. 

Education Secretary Michael Gove has scrapped the guidelines for home study introduced by Labour in 1998. 

It follows parents' complaints that too much homework is limiting family time and opportunities for play and sport. 

Education officials said head teachers should be able to make decisions free from "unnecessary bureaucratic guidance".

Gove has certainly made the right decision. And this little history lesson shows why I think he is a better education secretary than David Blunkett or Estelle Morris.

Six of the Best 104

The hyperlocal Saddleworth News has been at the centre of the blogging world today for its coverage of the Phil Woolas court case. Meanwhile, BBC journalists have been on strike. So up yours, Andrew Marr.

Also on that case, Norfolk Blogger argues: "Many ordinary Labour voters have found the campaigning from Labour in Oldaham to be distasteful and counter productive. There is a line which many people in politics push against, but few so blatantly step over it (although I feel the Dr Death leaflets distributed in Oxford West and Abingdon - not by Labour - in May 210 against Lib Dem Dr Evan Harris were equally as shameful)."

Sandy Walkington ponders the importance of being Chris Huhne.

David Blunkett's guide dog Sadie is finding it hard to come to terms with life in opposition, reports The Questing Vole.

Elected mayors are the latest gimmick to afflict local government. David MacLean has the latest gossip on who might be the Labour candidate in Leicester.

Talking of Leicester, the Guardian has a guide to the city's best budget restaurants. Of those listed, and others are available, I happily endorse Kayal in Granby Street.