You are in the company
of
Roger Warren Evans
Roger Warren Evans
|
|
You are in the company
of
Roger Warren Evans |
|
| Part of www.LivePolitics.net < Back to Home Page |
|
|
item0029A 590, 591 590 6 January 2003 David Triesman General
Secretary Dear Mr Triesman 
I am writing to return to you my Party membership card, herewith. I have been a Party member all my adult days, in London and in Swansea, now a retired History teacher, and NUT member. I am aware that, together with my husband’s subscription for 2003, my own Party dues have been paid by Direct Debit, and I seek no re-fund – indeed, I do not wish the Party any ill-will. But my resignation has been forced by events. It is clear to me that the Party has abandoned any commitment to “socialism”, or to the egalitarian, liberal view of society to which I have dedicated my adult life, and my teaching career. I am appalled by the Party’s espousal of selection in education, the mindless subordination of the teaching profession to defective forms of evaluation and testing (I even – misguidedly as it turns out - became a qualified OFSTED Inspector, before the superficial and destructive character of the Inspection system became clear to me – Labour must reform that Thatcherite institution.) Wherever one looks, in health policy, in pensions, on immigration, on drugs, the Party has become a shallow populist Party, abandoning principle and seeking only the most popular solution. Nothing is left of the idealism, the socialism, which brought me into the Party in the first place. My resignation was almost countered by the marvellous record of Labour in Wales, in particular of the Welsh Minister of Education Jane Davidson – I am proud of the contribution which she has made to UK politics. If it were possible to remain a member of a “Wales Labour Party”, I would do so. But it is not. The Party continues to assert its UK-wide identity – and, quite simply, I can no longer identify with it. I cannot imagine voting other than “Labour”. But a vote is a vote, no more. Party membership conveys quite a different message, and one that is no longer true for me. My membership of the Labour Party is at an end. Yours sincerely Elizabeth Evans What is your reaction? Drop me a line
591 6 January 2003 Try again, Tony! The PM is reported to have "failed" in his attempt to keep the Courts open longer, to make the wheels of criminal justice work faster. The experiment in "instant justice" has proved ruinously expensive, and Lord Irvine is set to scrap it. But the idea was a good one, and Blair should try again. Blair tried evening sittings, with special arrangements for inner-city Courts, to deal quickly with vandals and petty criminals brought in off the streets - overtime payments were high, late-night taxis for everyone broke the bank, and the prisons refused to sty open late, to receive new inmates. It was all an expensive dead-end... The right course is simply to start much earlier in the morning. Our Courts conventionally grind into motion by 10.00 am, before breaking for lunch at 12.45 pm. My solution would be for everyone should be in position by 7.30 am, ready for a session-start at 8.00 am, summer and winter. They should all work through until 3.30 pm. To add two hours to the length of every Court day would generate a massive increase in the capacity of the Court system - and working in the morning is much more effective than working in the afternoon. Contracts of employment could in due course be re-drawn to permit shift working, at standard rates - there need be no overtime. The prison system could adjust easily, without the need to keep open in the late-evening. Travelling from 6.00 am onwards would reduce conflict with the rush-hour. The whole system would be made to work faster, and there would be no specific concentration on tonight's vandals, today's sneak-thieves and drunks.
What do you think? Drop me a line
|
|
|
|
Created by GMID Design & Communication COPYRIGHT NOTICE
|
New