The flood of compassionate conservatism flowing from the lips of the new PM – seemingly oblivious of her punitive past – is checked by Professor Danny Dorling, social geographer (Oxford), whose relevant experience is documented here.
After hearing Theresa May’s torrent of lavish promises of research into inequality, with the emphasis on race, he pointed out that the data has already been collected. Many political promises have then been made but not kept. He failed to mention his own role in collecting such data – see his stellar record here.
In 2013, when he became the Halford Mackinder Professor of Geography (Oxford), he spoke about the increasing disparity between Britain’s richest 1% and the rest in his inaugural lecture:
“Income inequality has now reached a new maximum and, for the first time in a century, even those just below the richest 1% are beginning to suffer, to see their disposable income drop.”
Those who are being swayed by the PM’s rhetoric should just look at her actions in office which belied this humanitarian stance, published earlier on this site. Her record as Home Secretary has been well-documented but more relevant here is her parallel term as Minister for Women and Equality, when her edicts downgraded the provision for carers, children in need and vulnerable people. Her finest year? 2010, when she:
- suspended the registration scheme for carers of children and vulnerable people.
- scrapped the former Labour Government’s proposed “go orders” scheme to protect women from domestic violence by banning abusers from the victim’s home.
- closed the previous Government’s “ContactPoint” database of 11 million under-18-year olds designed to protect children in the wake of the Victoria Climbiéchild abuse scandal and
- removed a clause from the Equality Act which would have required public bodies to consider how they can reduce socio-economic inequalities when making decisions about spending and services.
Has her attitude on ‘socio-economic inequalities’ really been transformed? Is she now a truthful and humane person?
As news comes in that over 50 CLPs have voted to support Jeremy Corbyn, another side of the coin has been revealed.
A new Labour Party member, who joined because of Jeremy Corbyn’s principled track record, went to a “hustings” meeting this week. She writes:
“There were about 170 people present from all wards of the constituency. They allowed 3 minute speeches from supporters of both Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith – equal numbers – and judging from a ‘clapometer’ perspective, the JC supporters were in the majority, probably two thirds to one third.
“The invitation to the event had said there would be a ballot but, when we got to that part of the agenda, the chair stated that, at a previous meeting (a year ago) it had been decided that there would not be a vote.
“As people objected to this proposal, there was a show of hands of who wanted to vote and who didn’t, probably about 50:50 or 60:40 for those who wanted to vote. Yet the chair, who counted the hands announced that the numbers were 57:36 in favour of not voting – a total of 93, when almost double that number were present.
“She obviously made a mistake, onlyans giving figures for one side of the room where there were more OS supporters, but was this deliberate?
“The meeting was called with a view to endorsing one or the other of the candidates. They failed to do this, when they saw the pro-JC mood of the meeting, saying that those present didn’t represent the whole constituency anyway, with some on holiday or unable to make it, so they wouldn’t proceed to a ballot.
“I can’t believe that this type of manipulation happened. It will be interesting to see which way the vote eventually goes when the whole membership sends in their official ballots.”