Steve Bullock's Manifesto

The place for serious discussion, announcements and breaking news about Sydenham
Post Reply
Tim Lund
Posts: 6718
Joined: 13 Mar 2008 18:10
Location: Silverdale

Steve Bullock's Manifesto

Post by Tim Lund »

MANIFESTO

In Lewisham, Labour is working hard and planning for the future. We do this against a backdrop of a difficult economic climate, made very much worse by the Conservative-Lib Dem Coalition government that chooses austerity over growth and hits ordinary people hard whilst helping out their wealthy friends with tax cuts.

Over the next four years the Council will face further savage cuts in the funding government provides to support our services. We will inevitably face some very tough choices and we will need to take a radical approach to how services are delivered. But we also need to do even more to address the challenges we face. If I am re-elected I will:-
  1. Deliver a minimum of 2,000 new affordable homes, including at least 500 council homes, tackle rogue landlords and rip-off letting agents
  2. Provide a primary school place for every child and improve secondary school results by 10%
  3. Tackle the cost of living crisis, lead the way on fair pay, fight fuel poverty and freeze council tax for at least 2 years and keep at inflation or below thereafter
  4. Ensure that the benefits of regeneration in Lewisham reach local people, and support the creation of 3,000 new jobs over the next seven years
  5. Help young people though the provision of high quality vocational training and increase the number of apprenticeships to 1,000
For more, follow link

Hopefully this will generate some serious comment here, although I'm off getting involved in any controversy until after Easter :)
leenewham
Posts: 5886
Joined: 2 Sep 2007 11:58
Location: SYDENHAM
Contact:

Re: Steve Bullock's Manifesto

Post by leenewham »

These are all good things. But, er (I looked into this)…

1: Isn't this happening because it's a Liberal Democrat Policy delivered as part of the coalition that is allowing local authorities to do this?

Why didn't labour allow this to happen when it was in power? Why didn't it happen before when times were good?

2. Great idea. Good. But why didn't this happen when Labour were in power. How will they do this when we are in 'austerity'? Where will the money come from? Billions extra were spent on education under Labour, how will Bullock improve school results? What is the big idea? Manipulate figures?

3. Yes, yes, yes, anyone would agree with this. I keep reading that our council tax goes up because the government has cut their funding. Because of this funding cut Sydenham Library had to 'be disposed of' (it was saved) and Forest Hill Pools had to be knocked down (it didn't). Its' all very well Bullock acting like he will feed the 5000 with a slice of Hovis and a lollypop, but HOW?

4. Agree. But how. What's the idea? How will he do this?

5. Good, to be encouraged. But apprenticeships were again a Liberal Democrat policy they were able to implement though the coalition. 86% more apprenticeships under than than under Labour apparently.

I read though Bullocks manifesto and a lot of things in there were due to central government initiatives or the Mayor of Londons office. He talks about "Help working families with the cost of childcare", which seems to be yet another Liberal Democrat policy appropriated by Bullock.

I'm all for being able to sell what you do. But don't sell something someone else has done as yours.

What I find amazing, is that the Mayor has managed to do all these things, yet with a reduced budget while also freezing/reducing council tax. So either some services are greatly cut or under funded (what are these, can anyone tell the public at large) or there was a lot of fat and waste in Lewisham which has now gone.

I'm seriously confused. Can anyone shed some light on this?

Please note, I'm not for any party. But am I mistaken in the conclusions above? Before the last election everyone wanted to cut the debt. Even Labour said they would. Now the UK's economy is returning to growth. The problem is poorer families are suffering while the division between rich and poor has grown.

But I haven't seen anyone come up with any ideas so far to address this. it's not about punishing the rich or supporting the poor in the long term. We need ideas to help create the right environment for a diverse economy, from education to employment, that is fair, flexible and innovative to allow the economy to grow sustainably and help all people flourish within it.
hairybuddha

Re: Steve Bullock's Manifesto

Post by hairybuddha »

Almost complete agreement with Lee's post above. The manifesto is so vague as to be almost meaningless and the opening paragraph of Tim's post is so pathetically partisan. People aren't interested in party-political sniping.
leenewham wrote:What I find amazing, is that the Mayor has managed to do all these things, yet with a reduced budget while also freezing/reducing council tax. So either some services are greatly cut or under funded (what are these, can anyone tell the public at large) or there was a lot of fat and waste in Lewisham which has now gone.
There was, and still is, obscene amounts of waste in local government. IIRC Lewisham was one of the worst offenders.
Eagle
Posts: 10658
Joined: 7 Oct 2004 06:36
Location: F Hill

Re: Steve Bullock's Manifesto

Post by Eagle »

It is a touch irrelevant as Lewisham has been a one party state for decades.


You could put a monkey up for Mayor as Labour and they would get in.
leenewham
Posts: 5886
Joined: 2 Sep 2007 11:58
Location: SYDENHAM
Contact:

Re: Steve Bullock's Manifesto

Post by leenewham »

It's up to the other politicians to come up with better ideas than Sir Steve and sell those ideas to keep him honest and on his toes. Or beat him.

They let us down as much as those in power do. I just don't believe most politicians believe what they say aside from one of two with integrity, and unfortunately we just lost Tony Ben who always seemed to be, irrespective of his policies, to be a man of his word and of principle.
Eagle
Posts: 10658
Joined: 7 Oct 2004 06:36
Location: F Hill

Re: Steve Bullock's Manifesto

Post by Eagle »

Rod

A number of people who vote Labour with out thinking would and do agree with a lot of my views.

Do you really believe all Labour Voters have any idea what Labour Policy is. Infact the Shadow Cabinet does not know.
Eagle
Posts: 10658
Joined: 7 Oct 2004 06:36
Location: F Hill

Re: Steve Bullock's Manifesto

Post by Eagle »

Of course one could Rod, although would imagine Labour have more than their fare share of sheep.
Eagle
Posts: 10658
Joined: 7 Oct 2004 06:36
Location: F Hill

Re: Steve Bullock's Manifesto

Post by Eagle »

True to an extent but surely no one would disagree that the average Tory voter more intelligent than their Labour counterpart.
leenewham
Posts: 5886
Joined: 2 Sep 2007 11:58
Location: SYDENHAM
Contact:

Re: Steve Bullock's Manifesto

Post by leenewham »

rod taylor wrote:
It's an interesting one, Lee. I think becoming a politician requires a huge amount of sacrifice.

I am reasonably intelligent, articulate and have firm political views on how I think this country could improve and grow. I believe in direct democracy and feel like I have a lot to give. But I would not for a minute consider going into politics. The level of public scrutiny, the towing of certain lines, the lack of privacy, the raking over private lives, all that makes becoming a public figure in this country such a turn-off.
[/quote]

I agree, however I think fair criticism should be welcomed and praise should be more forthcoming. I think anyone going into anything where the spotlight is cast is taking a chance. But they do know what they are getting into and there has never been a shortage of politicians. Many in politics take up careers in the media when they leave politics.

I expect politics is a very frustrating game to be in. Parties and politicians attack each other left right and centre. I admire some politicians, even if I don't agree with them and they are in a few different parties from different ages.

I always remember Tony Speller (who was totally useless to be honest), Conservative MP for Devon talking with Edwina Curry back in the early 90'/late 80's referring to students as 'wanting to spend all their money on cd's'. There are some absolute idiots elected to office, some MP's ended up in prison after the expenses scandal, others got away with repaying small abounds of money from the public purse, others defending the papers over the phone tapping scandal etc.

I think the biggest problem with British Politics is along the lines of 'everyone is doing it so it's ok'. Expenses, flipping homes, lack of voting, not voting against party if you believe in it etc. Unfortunately the bad ones give the good ones a bad name.

The current attitude towards politicians is self made. I'm afraid you reap what you sow. It's up to politicians to clean up their own house.

I think that could have happened, or at least started to happen if we had PR, but the British electorate ****** that up for all time.
leenewham
Posts: 5886
Joined: 2 Sep 2007 11:58
Location: SYDENHAM
Contact:

Re: Steve Bullock's Manifesto

Post by leenewham »

Eagle wrote:True to an extent but surely no one would disagree that the average Tory voter more intelligent than their Labour counterpart.
So are you a Labour voter then Eagle?
Eagle
Posts: 10658
Joined: 7 Oct 2004 06:36
Location: F Hill

Re: Steve Bullock's Manifesto

Post by Eagle »

Great wit there Lee

You are obviously not a typical Labour Voter.

I am a floating voter and always have been , but can honestly say the one and only time I voted Labour was in 1970 for young Harold.

One certainly makes strange decisions when one is young.
leenewham
Posts: 5886
Joined: 2 Sep 2007 11:58
Location: SYDENHAM
Contact:

Re: Steve Bullock's Manifesto

Post by leenewham »

Like you Eagle, I too am a floater ;-)

At the moment, no-one is earning my vote. I feel let down.
Eagle
Posts: 10658
Joined: 7 Oct 2004 06:36
Location: F Hill

Re: Steve Bullock's Manifesto

Post by Eagle »

Lee

Yes the standards of our Political Leaders are not what they were.

They do not earn the respect of Gentlemen like Sir A Douglas Home
Manwithaview1
Posts: 2162
Joined: 21 Jan 2012 21:23
Location: Sydenham Hill Estate

Re: Steve Bullock's Manifesto

Post by Manwithaview1 »

Eagle wrote:True to an extent but surely no one would disagree that the average Tory voter more intelligent than their Labour counterpart.
I would.

Various academic studies have confirmed that someone to the Left is more intelligent than a Right winger.

On average.

Just look at those who voted for Grant Schapps/Michael Green/Sebastian Fox thinking he is honourable. :lol:

http://www.livescience.com/18132-intell ... acism.html

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

"Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood," he said.


Controversy ahead

The findings combine three hot-button topics.

"They've pulled off the trifecta of controversial topics," said Brian Nosek, a social and cognitive psychologist at the University of Virginia who was not involved in the study. "When one selects intelligence, political ideology and racism and looks at any of the relationships between those three variables, it's bound to upset somebody."

Polling data and social and political science research do show that prejudice is more common in those who hold right-wing ideals that those of other political persuasions, Nosek told LiveScience. [7 Thoughts That Are Bad For You]

"The unique contribution here is trying to make some progress on the most challenging aspect of this," Nosek said, referring to the new study. "It's not that a relationship like that exists, but why it exists."

Brains and bias

Earlier studies have found links between low levels of education and higher levels of prejudice, Hodson said, so studying intelligence seemed a logical next step. The researchers turned to two studies of citizens in the United Kingdom, one that has followed babies since their births in March 1958, and another that did the same for babies born in April 1970. The children in the studies had their intelligence assessed at age 10 or 11; as adults ages 30 or 33, their levels of social conservatism and racism were measured. [Life's Extremes: Democrat vs. Republican]

In the first study, verbal and nonverbal intelligence was measured using tests that asked people to find similarities and differences between words, shapes and symbols. The second study measured cognitive abilities in four ways, including number recall, shape-drawing tasks, defining words and identifying patterns and similarities among words. Average IQ is set at 100.

Social conservatives were defined as people who agreed with a laundry list of statements such as "Family life suffers if mum is working full-time," and "Schools should teach children to obey authority." Attitudes toward other races were captured by measuring agreement with statements such as "I wouldn't mind working with people from other races." (These questions measured overt prejudiced attitudes, but most people, no matter how egalitarian, do hold unconscious racial biases; Hodson's work can't speak to this "underground" racism.)

As suspected, low intelligence in childhood corresponded with racism in adulthood. But the factor that explained the relationship between these two variables was political: When researchers included social conservatism in the analysis, those ideologies accounted for much of the link between brains and bias.

People with lower cognitive abilities also had less contact with people of other races.

"This finding is consistent with recent research demonstrating that intergroup contact is mentally challenging and cognitively draining, and consistent with findings that contact reduces prejudice," said Hodson, who along with his colleagues published these results online Jan. 5 in the journal Psychological Science.

A study of averages

Hodson was quick to note that the despite the link found between low intelligence and social conservatism, the researchers aren't implying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives stupid. The research is a study of averages over large groups, he said.

"There are multiple examples of very bright conservatives and not-so-bright liberals, and many examples of very principled conservatives and very intolerant liberals," Hodson said.

Nosek gave another example to illustrate the dangers of taking the findings too literally.

"We can say definitively men are taller than women on average," he said. "But you can't say if you take a random man and you take a random woman that the man is going to be taller. There's plenty of overlap."

Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that strict right-wing ideology might appeal to those who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world.

"Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order," Hodson said, explaining why these beliefs might draw those with low intelligence. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice."

In another study, this one in the United States, Hodson and Busseri compared 254 people with the same amount of education but different levels of ability in abstract reasoning. They found that what applies to racism may also apply to homophobia. People who were poorer at abstract reasoning were more likely to exhibit prejudice against gays. As in the U.K. citizens, a lack of contact with gays and more acceptance of right-wing authoritarianism explained the link. [5 Myths About Gay People Debunked]

Simple viewpoints

Hodson and Busseri's explanation of their findings is reasonable, Nosek said, but it is correlational. That means the researchers didn't conclusively prove that the low intelligence caused the later prejudice. To do that, you'd have to somehow randomly assign otherwise identical people to be smart or dumb, liberal or conservative. Those sorts of studies obviously aren't possible.

The researchers controlled for factors such as education and socioeconomic status, making their case stronger, Nosek said. But there are other possible explanations that fit the data. For example, Nosek said, a study of left-wing liberals with stereotypically naïve views like "every kid is a genius in his or her own way," might find that people who hold these attitudes are also less bright. In other words, it might not be a particular ideology that is linked to stupidity, but extremist views in general.

"My speculation is that it's not as simple as their model presents it," Nosek said. "I think that lower cognitive capacity can lead to multiple simple ways to represent the world, and one of those can be embodied in a right-wing ideology where 'People I don't know are threats' and 'The world is a dangerous place'. ... Another simple way would be to just assume everybody is wonderful."

Prejudice is of particular interest because understanding the roots of racism and bias could help eliminate them, Hodson said. For example, he said, many anti-prejudice programs encourage participants to see things from another group's point of view. That mental exercise may be too taxing for people of low IQ.
Post Reply