Ideas about the reserve forces please

The Strategic Defence and Security Revue left a gap where the policy on the Reserve Forces was meant to be.  Apparently Liam Fox and David Cameron weren't happy with how much thought had gone into reserve forces policy and wanted to give themselves more time to get it right.  I welcome that decision.

Julian Brazier TD MP

Julian Brazier MP, a friend and former officer in the TA, is working on the policy development in this area with Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Nicholas Houghton.  I will be putting some ideas forward in a short report and I'd like some help from the online community.

Some questions which might help stimulate your minds are:

• What structure should the reserve forces take?
• In which roles should/could the reserves be used?
• What should be the balance between commitment to the military and to their civilian employers?
• Should employers of reserve service people get any kind of "payback" from the government?
• What support/welfare structures should the reserve forces have?
• How should the reserves be recruited/trained/retained?
• Could there be a role for reserve forces bursaries for degree courses etc?

Please don't feel constrained by these questions, any ideas gratefully received.  Don't worry about the structure of the ideas either, I would like your feedback in any form that you would like to give it.  And don't feel that you need to have served in the forces to contribute, friends, family, employers etc. all have an important part to play in the life of the reserves and will have something useful to contribute.

Either use the comments section below or email me at the contact details here.

Thanks in advance.

It isn't fair

Politically speaking, the word "fair" is en vogue.

It has become the yardstick against which everything is being measured. I now hear the phrase "it isn't fair" quite regularly, mainly from two groups of people.

Firstly from political opponents who use the phrase in the context of policy announcements. The second group is made up of my children and they use it in the context of bedtime and eating vegetables etc. When both groups say "it isn't fair" what they really mean is "I don't like it".

Fairness is such a subjective concept that it has no meaningful place in the assessment of policy. Policy making is about balancing things like risk and reward, benefit and cost, need and ability.

Fair is such a poor word to use in the area of policy and government that I propose a better one. How about "nice"?

Brian Coleman and the FBU

I'll put my cards on the table, my office in City Hall is next door to Brian Coleman's and he is both a friend and a colleague. 

Front cover of FBU newsletter from 2006

It is clear that the FBU is trying to personalise this dispute by describing Brian as a bully and worse.  Let's be clear, Brian is blunt talking and is the ultimate "marmite" politician but he is devoted to his constituency and the people who live and work there, unafraid to challenge Boris when he feels the need to and takes elected office seriously.

I don't expect everyone to love (or even like) Brian but as a former commanding officer of mine once said "If I wanted an officer that everyone loved I'd have recruited a spaniel".

This strike is not about Brian, and attempts to tie it to him are a distraction from the real issues about the effectiveness of the fire service and the prevention of fires.  This is borne out by the treatment that the former, Labour, chair of the fire authority received by a number of FBU members and that the threat of stike action has been on the table for over four years (as you can see above).

I think the FBU leadership realise that they've shot themselves in the foot with their Bonfire night strike threat and I hope that they will come to a settlement at the talk that have now been arranged. 

FBU have got it badly wrong with Bonfire night strike

People in the private sector are worrying about possible job losses because their companies are struggling to survive the recession.  Other Londoners have to absorb public spending cuts because Labour’s deficit has left us with no money.  They are doing it, for the most part, with stoicism.

Yet the Fire Brigade Union (FBU) has voted to strike.  Not because of job losses, pay cuts or longer hours but because of a small change to their shift patterns. These changes are designed to modernise the capital’s fire service, enabling firefighters do more fire prevention work during the day shift, preventing deadly fires and saving lives.

The change means that both day and night shifts will be 12 hours long, rather than the nine hour day and 15 hour night shift that currently exists. The sleep periods on night shifts and the opportunity for firefighters to have second jobs on their days off are both protected.

The FBU says these changes will jeopardise public safety, even though they have been successfully introduced in fire brigades across the country.  Despite all this, on the 1st and 5th of November FBU members will leave their posts.


FBU demonstrators block contract fire cover providers



You won’t see soldiers and Green Goddesses on the streets this time, the army is a bit busy at the moment in Afghanistan.  The head of London's fire authority has contracted in 27 fire engines and 700 private firefighters to keep the capital protected.  No one is saying that this is as much cover as the full Fire Brigade would provide but the fire authority is making sure that Londoners aren't left exposed.

The Union are trying to make it sound as though this is about 5,500 job losses and claim that they would call off the strike if negotiations take place, they fail to mention that these shift changes have been in negotiation for years.

Firefighters do an essential job and are willing to put their lives at risk, they have traditionally been held in high regard by the public.  But the FBU's willingness to walkout on Bonfire night over such a trivial matter reflects very poorly on its leadership and its action won't attract public sympathy.

Does Red Ed have the guts to punish Red Ken?

How will Labour square this circle?

Livingstone campaigned for the candidate that beat Labour!

The result and the leaflets shown above really make his position untenable, but I'm sure that Labour will break their own rules because they don't want Livingstone to run as an independent again.

A very bad day for Tower Hamlets

I was campaigning with Neil King over in Tower Hamlets on Wednesday, unfortunately the hard work that he and many others put in didn't result in a win for him in the mayoral election.

The concerns that have been expressed about the winner, and new mayor of Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman have been very concerning and I have little doubt that Andrew Gilligan is right in his assessment that the next few years will be "a slow motion car crash".

The people who will suffer most are the residents and businesses of Tower Hamlets and as harsh as this may sound the Government must resist the temptation to step in. Too often voters in local government elections disassociate their vote from the actions of the council they go on to elect. How did the voters of Haringey punish a council who allowed their social services department to implode resulting in the deaths of Victoria Climbie and of Baby Peter? By returning the same clueless Labour administration. Voters need to understand that their vote matters and localism will be meaningless if it only means localism in good times.

This is also the worst possible news for the London Labour party. How can they still support a London Mayoral candidate who campaigned against the local Labour candidate. Ken Livingstone's support will have gone a long way to securing Rahman's win, are Labour just going to ignore that fact?

SDSR and the reserves

The Labour Tower Hamlets farce continues

This morning the news broke that a number of Labour councillors had been expelled from the party for campaigning for Lutfur Rahman and against the Labour party's official candidate. Tower Hamlets' Labour party has been a laughing stock for some time so this mass expusion didn't make much impact.

What was more interesting was that Ken Livingstone was campaigning alongside these very same expelled councillors and Lutfur Rahman himself. The funny thing is that while Labour moved quickly to expel the councillors they have been silent on Livingstone's position.

When asked specifically about Labour members campaigning for Lutfur Rahman, Harriet Harman said "There is nobody else that is a Labour candidate for Tower Hamlets… if they are supporting somebody else, then they are opposing the Labour Party and you cannot be against a party and in it".

It seems that while all animals are born equal some are more equal than others.

There is a simple answer to all this, vote for Neil King, the Conservative candidate for Mayor of Tower Hamlets.

Burglary falls by 31.9% in Bromley

Bromley police have released their half yearly crime figures and there is good news across all crime types. Once again crime reduction in Bromley is better than the Met average with a 12% fall in total crime for the period April to August 2010, compared to a 0.6% MPS average.

This figure includes a huge 31.9% fall in burglary offences, an 8.5% fall in motor vehicle crime, a 7.9% fall in violence related offences and a 4.3% fall in knife crime offences. These reductions come after a 10% drop last year.

Not only are crime rates falling so is the time the police take to respond to calls, in October 2007 their average emergency call response time was 30.32 minutes, now it is a staggering 9.07 minutes.

The funny thing about these figures is that over the corresponding period Bromley saw a fall in public confidence in the police. The Public Attitude Survey is conducted every three months across London and in the most recent survey, Bromley received the worst rating for ‘Police and council are dealing with anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter to this area’. The score was 27%, well below last year's figure of 58%, and below the London average of 49%. Yet victims of crime, those people who actually experience contact with their local police, rate say they are satisfied in 82% of cases, the second highest in London!

This mis-match is not unique to Bromley, last year Bexley's confidence figures were rock bottom despite being one of the lowest crime boroughs in London. This contradiction is one of the reasons I welcomed the scrapping of the single confidence measure.

If you think you can explain the mis-match between real crime figures and public perception in Bromley the Borough Commander, Chief Superintendent Charles Griggs, would welcome your feedback. You can let him know what you think by emailing him at Bromley.foia@met.police.uk

Pointless London Fire Brigade strike

This afternoon the London Fire Brigade Union voted for strike action and it is the most pointless of strikes.

It has been called for the most trivial of reasons, not job losses, not pay cuts, not longer contractual hours, this strike is about a small change in their shift patterns. At the moment firefighters work two 9-hour day shifts, then two 15-hour night shifts and then get four days off. The new plan will be the same in all respects other than the day and night shifts will both become 12-hours long, meaning that they still have a 48-hour working week and four protected days off.

What these changes will mean that crews are not swapping shifts during the morning and evening rush hours (as they currently do) and more fire prevention work can be done (traditionally day shift work). These changes will bring them into line with other fire brigades across the country.

You won't be seeing soldiers or Green Goddesses on the streets of London this time because the London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority has put in place alternative fire cover arrangements. 27 fire engines and 700 private firefighters have been contracted to provide emergency cover if the strike goes ahead.

I'm far from convinced that Londoners will have much sympathy for the Fire Brigade Union when they find why this strike has been called.

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

UPDATE: If you want to see the full implications of this type of shift pattern change, Dorset Fire and rescue have an excellent document on their website which explains it all in great detail.

Business as usual?

How well will the police, NHS and fire service cope during the Olympic and Paralympic Games?

The plans for the Olympic site are well developed but what effect will the games have on services across the rest of London?


The full report is available here: Business as usual? PDF

Linda Norgrove, sometimes terrible things happen to good people

I detect the start of a witch-hunt over the tragic death of Linda Norgrove and it needs to stop.

Linda chose to put herself into harm's way to protect others and help make their lives better, it is a noble thing to do and her bravery has rightly been recognised. The American special forces who attempted to save her also risked their lives and we should never lose sight of that.

It may be fashionable to sneer at the American army or to assume that Linda's death was the result of gung-ho, trigger happy hicks but it would be deeply wrong to do so, like our own special forces the Americans are highly trained and professional. I don't pretend to know what it is like in the claustrophobic, confusing and intense environment of a real hostage rescue and neither does anyone else who hasn't been in one. Second guessing their actions and having "what they should have done" conversations are meaningless and insulting.

Clearly we need to learn from this, but lessons will not be learned if those involved feel besieged or fear that they will become scapegoats. Conflict isn't like the films, it is imprecise, confusing and dangerous and some times the good guys don't win.

Bloody hazard lights!

This is going to be a bit of a rant!

What is the deal with hazard lights? Yesterday I was confronted with so many people using their hazards badly I almost lost it. Lost it in a very British way of course, I muttered under my breath.

Taxi drivers, if you want to let other drivers know that you intend to pull over and stop to pick up/drop of a fair, you break lights and indicator will do the job perfectly well.

Parents on the school run, the hazard lights do not magically turn a badly parked car into a well parked car, if you were sticking three feet out before you put them on, you'll still be sticking out afterwards.

And to those of you who are just popping into a shop for a minute, the flashing amber light on each corner of your car do not do to parking wardens what garlic and a crucifix do to vampires. They can still give you a ticket.

When parked in a queue of other cars a hazard light looks remarkably like the indicator of someone trying to pull out and it is particularly annoying to polite drivers (of which I include myself) who slow to let you out only to be rewarded with an empty.

But I'm a politician, I'm not here just to rant and do nothing, I'm here to propose solutions, and here is mine. The on switch for the hazard lights should be on the dashboard of the car so that the driver can initiate it in the event of a genuine emergency but the off switch should be in the engine compartment. To turn off the hazard lights the driver would need to turn off the engine, pop the hood and press a button somewhere near the wiper fluid reservoir and if their car was like ours get their hands a bit dirty in the process.

It would mean that drivers thought twice before turning on the most over-used bit of automotive equipment.

The David Cameron rap

Tory politicians and rapping do not have a good history, luckily DC didn't do this one himself.

Someone has created this and it is rather good:

Hat tip: Guido

Job Advert: Media advisor for Ken Livingstone campaign

Wanted - Someone to let Ken Livingstone know when a photo opportunity isn't a good one.


CVs to Ken Livingstone Campaign, care of TSSA Union HQ, Walkden House, 10 Melton Street, London, NW1 2EJ

Photo credit: Iain Dale

Europa Gym, great news

Regular readers (I rather arrogantly assume there is more than one) will know that I've had a keen interest in the future of the Europa Gym Club for a while, the great news is that the hard work of Len and Yvonne Arnold has paid off and a new gym will be build to replace the old crumbling facility they currently use.

Not only that but Lord Coe will soon announce the new facility in Maiden Lane, Crayford as one of the training centres for London's Olympic and Paralympic Games. Len and Yvonne started the gym 17 years ago and have devoted their lives to keeping the club alive, including selling their home to generate desperately needed funds when their landlord put their rent up to full commercial rates.

The move has been made possible by the support of a range of organisations including Bexley Council, the Olympic Delivery Authority, the Sports Lottery Fund and Barratt Homes. They have also had the support of a host of individual donors and volunteers, but none of this would have happened without the hard work of Len and Yvonne.

Child benefit and taxes

The announcement of changes to the child benefit wasn't well handled and it is clear that some of the details will need to be ironed before the system changes in 2013, but that doesn't make the policy wrong.

Susie and I have two children and receive child allowance even though I'm on a good income. We don't really need the extra money but like many parents we will notice when the money goes. But remember that Child Benefit has to be paid for and it is paid for with taxes.

It wouldn't be that hard for the government to protect this universal benefit, they could do it by putting up taxes and in doing so it would take money out of the pockets of the very same people who feel aggrieved at losing out. Also because government is inherently inefficient it needs to take much more from you than the £20.40 it gives you back.

10:10 Campaign, comply or die

I've just watched a very unpleasant video. The 10:10 campaign created the video to draw attention to their campaign, it is called "No Pressure", I'm not going to put it on here but it is easily available on YouTube if you want to watch it.

The basic premise is that you should sign up to the 10:10 campaign or be blown up. The first scene sees two school children being blown up by their climate change campaigning teacher and showering their shocked classmates in blood. Nice.

We've all said and done things which we regret later and the campaign have taken the video down from their site and apologised for any offence caused, which I think is the right thing to do. What troubles me is how it ever came to be shown in the first place.

According to their website there were 50 film-makers, 40 actors, Richard Curtis as the writer and, I assume, a number of people at the campaign itself involved in the making of the video. Didn't any of them point out that at best the video was in shockingly poor taste and at worst it was going to reinforce the idea that the climate change lobby are deeply intolerant of any disagreement. Or both.

A bigger own goal than the Miliband brothers "Back to the 1980s" poster? Discuss.

Special Constables and recruitment to the Met

Yesterday morning the MPA decided to endorse changes to the way that the Met recruits its officers. Under the new system the vast majority of recruits will be drawn from the Met Special Constabulary and from the Met PCSOs.

The measures will save the MPA between £10,000-£20,000 per recruit, recently the met have recruited up to 2,000 officer per year. If this scheme had been in place we would have saved around £12,000,000 per year. With the last government leaving the Home Secretary a huge financial black hole to deal with, a £12million saving cannot be overlooked.

But this isn't just about saving money, there are a number of factors which converge around this issue. The Met has a demographic hump that is working its way through the force, because of a spike in recruitment about 30 years ago we have a large number of officers coming to their retirement dates at about the same time. When they leave they will need to be replaced and the current system isn't very good at producing significant numbers of officers quickly.

The other demographic issue in the Met is around diversity, the Met Special Constabulary has a higher proportion of BME and female officers than the full time force. Finding a way to get the police to more closely reflect the communities they serve has been a nut that the leadership of the Met and the MPA have been trying to crack for years, these changes look like they could help address the current imbalance without compromising the quality of the Met's recruits. The plan has the support of the Met Police Federation and the Met Black Police Association.

My friend and colleague Tony Arbour AM described this plan as "the Holy Grail", it will produce better results than the current system for less money.

Funny then that a number of MPA members from left wing parties opposed it. Their main criticism was that it would favour "middle class" recruits because people on lower incomes wouldn't be able to spend the time volunteering as Specials. The problem with that argument is that it just isn't supported by the facts, the Specials are more diverse that the full time Met and the free travel concession that Specials receive is more significant a perk to lower income officers than those on higher incomes.

I've been really impressed by the imagination that the Met have displayed over this issue and have been disappointed (but not surprised) by how reactionary the left wingers have been.