Jim Murphy MP

Have your say Jims Blog

You are here: Home / Interactive Services / Blog

Tuesday, 2nd Feb 2010

A Day from History

Perhaps talking about just two decades ago as the making of history is too premature for some people but thats what happened in South Africa twenty years ago today when FW De Klerk announced the end of apartheid. In many ways he was a surprising choice of politician to make such an announcement. As some of you will know I lived in South Africa all my teenage years and he was the Education Minister who oversaw a bastion of apartheid - the school system. But he became the man who helped transform South Africa. It was a surprise to many.
Rather than me recount my memories and celebrations from 20 years ago I think today's Independent newspaper does it best with an interview with De Klerk himself. I have posted the article below. It may be a bit detailed for the casual observer of South African politics but it is really fascinating.

FW de Klerk: The day I ended apartheid

Twenty years ago today, FW de Klerk addressed South Africa's Parliament – and stunned the world. Ivan Fallon reveals the extraordinary story behind apartheid's end

Tuesday, 2 February 2010

'My objective that day was to convince both our friends and our foes alike that we had made the paradigm shift,' says de Klerk

AFP

'My objective that day was to convince both our friends and our foes alike that we had made the paradigm shift,' says de Klerk

Cape Town on Friday, 2 February 1990, 20 years ago today, was an extraordinary place to be. Everyone seemed to be there. The world's press had descended on South Africa's coastal capital in expectation of what would be the biggest news story of the year. Television cameras roamed the town, but as the day wore on they concentrated outside the State Parliament where a momentous event was expected to be announced. In Greenmarket Square and along Grand Parade in the heart of the city, wealthy young whites mixed happily with black demonstrators carrying the black, green and gold flags of the banned African National Congress (ANC) party. Archbishop Tutu was at St George's Cathedral with his flock, which included more whites than blacks, ready to celebrate a happening which he seemed to regard as the Second Coming.

What they were all waiting for was the release of Nelson Mandela, icon of the anti-apartheid movement for two decades, which President FW de Klerk was widely expected to herald that morning in the annual opening address to parliament, traditionally the occasion for big announcements in South African history. Mandela, it was generally hoped, would complete his long walk to freedom a few hours after that, and no newspaper or TV station could afford to miss it.

In fact de Klerk had no intention of freeing Mandela that day. He had something even bigger on his mind, something he knew would take even the keenest observers of his presidential style by surprise. As MPs, ambassadors and other dignitaries gathered for the formal opening of parliament, only a handful of cabinet ministers were in the know, and they had been sworn not even to tell their wives – de Klerk only confided in his wife Marike on the way to parliament that morning.

De Klerk, in the job since September 1989, was about to announce the official end of apartheid, the system which the National Party, which included his Afrikaner forebears, had given birth to 41 years before and whose brutality and injustice millions had demonstrated against in every capital in the free world. He wanted maximum impact and publicity for his speech, which he had been working on for months, and he didn't want the distraction of Mandela's pending release getting in the way of it.

"I had decided to play that down in my speech," says de Klerk in his Cape Town home 20 years later. "I knew the world's press was there, not because they wanted to hear me speak, but because they wanted to witness the release of Nelson Mandela. But I wanted them to focus on the fundamental decisions we had taken and to judge them on their merits, and not have the whole package overshadowed."

Mandela himself was the only man in the world, other than de Klerk, who didn't want him to be released that day. He wasn't yet ready for it, and told government ministers that he needed more time to prepare. After all, he had been in prison for 27 years – what was another week or two? But even he had no inkling of what de Klerk had in store for his party and people that day.

For years de Klerk's presidential predecessors had used their opening addresses for the purposes of bringing in and then strengthening the creeping laws of apartheid, which basically held that whites and blacks should live entirely separately, the whites in the rich lands of South Africa, the blacks in the desperately poor homelands carved out for them. To enforce the principles, the regimes of Hans Strijdom (de Klerk's uncle), Hendrik Verwoerd, John Vorster and, to a lesser extent, P W Botha, had brought in act after act which would eventually institutionalise one of the most repressive and hated regimes of the second half of the 20th century. It was in this hall, on this same occasion, that announcements heralded the Bantu Education Act, the pass laws, the banning of political parties, detention without trial, the death penalty just for "furthering the aims" of communism, the banning of free speech, restrictions on trade unions, and many others. Black Africans had basically lost nearly all of their human rights over that period.

Nothing in De Klerk's Afrikaner background suggested he was about to reverse all that. He had been in the job just four months and was still an unknown quantity, but what was known about him suggested he was no reformer. After a lifetime in the National Party (he was 54), he was generally regarded as on the verkrampte, or unenlightened, side of the party, although he always saw himself around the middle, neither verkrampte or verligte (enlightened), but certainly conservative.

"Negative expectations hinged on the fear that FW, far from being an innovator, was a hidebound disciple of apartheid," said his own brother, Willem, later. "He never formed any part of the enlightened movement in South Africa. It was even rumoured he had tried to put the brakes on all the reforms PW Botha had made."

Mandela later remarked that he placed no hopes in the address that day because de Klerk was "trapped in apartheid" and was too concerned that his power-base was being eroded by defections to the Conservative Party to make any radical moves.

None of them knew that for a year De Klerk had been working on a package of measures which, as he says now, "would go much further than anyone expected and was intended to gain the moral high ground". He had rejected the safer route of a gradual dismantling of the system basically because "the world would have thought we were playing games", and time was against him. The fall of the Berlin Wall at the end of 1989 was also a critical factor: "That took the sting out of the tail out of the Communist Party." It did the same for the ANC, many of whose leaders, including Presidents Mbeki and Zuma, had trained in the Soviet Union. De Klerk says his instincts were "to go for the whole package – as one of my colleagues advised, when you cut off the tail of the dog, better do it in one stroke".

He had become leader of the National Party exactly a year before when PW Botha, suffering from a major stroke, had reluctantly agreed to split his role, retaining the state presidency but giving up the party leadership. In the party election which followed, de Klerk ran as the centrist candidate, narrowly beating his verligte opponent Barend du Plessis (the real verligte candidate, the charismatic Pik Botha, who was much favoured by Western and African leaders, was eliminated in the first round). De Klerk's relationship with President Botha, never easy, soon deteriorated as the president became increasingly irascible as well as forgetful. Botha was ill, but stubbornly stayed, making de Klerk's life more and more difficult. "He was giving me the cold shoulder. I was supposed to be the third minister in the government but I was not kept informed of events: for instance I didn't know there had been secret meetings with Mandela until after I became president. As time went on, and Mr Botha became more ill and difficult, there was crisis after crisis. He began to forget things, agreeing to something in the morning and then saying he hadn't been consulted in the afternoon."

South Africa was heading for an election in September 1989, its last in the old form, and just three weeks before it, the Botha situation came to a head. The foreign minister Pik Botha, working hard to repair South Africa's desperate image with the rest of the world, asked de Klerk to accompany him on a visit to see Kenneth Kaunda, president of Zambia. He needed his support for the independence discussions on Namibia, which South Africa was about to give up after more than 70 years' rule. Pik believed he had the president's approval for the visit, but when Kaunda announced the date (August 28), PW hit the roof, accusing his two ministers of treason.

"PW was furious," says de Klerk ruefully. "He announced he would have to discipline us for doing it without his permission."

It was the final straw. De Klerk summoned all the ministers he could find to his house in Pretoria and asked for a united front to force the president to take sick leave. When he went to see Botha in Cape Town to tell him this, "he used the opportunity to give us a long lecture and called a full cabinet". It was to be his last. De Klerk opened the discussion in the cabinet on the part of the ministers, and presented the sick leave option, which he thought would be more palatable than the alternative, which would be a very public sacking (Botha had done much the same to his predecessor, John Vorster, 11 years before). "He went around the table and asked every member of the cabinet for their opinion, and everyone said they supported my proposal," says de Klerk. "He got cross and said he was as healthy as any of us, and many of us were taking more pills than he was. Then he went outside, and when he came back in he said, 'Gentlemen, I am resigning.'"

De Klerk was elected state president after the general election and was inaugurated, rather more modestly, on the same spot where Mandela would have South Africa's most celebrated inauguration five years later. The changes began immediately: he appointed the first woman ever to serve in a South African cabinet, and brought in a number of industrialists to help deal with an economic situation which was in crisis, largely a result of sanctions and piled-up debts. He also lifted the restrictions on protest marches, including a huge one led by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and ended many of the petty restrictions of apartheid, including segregated beaches, parks, lavatories and restaurants.

A bolder move was the release of political prisoners, starting with Govan Mbeki, father of (President) Thabo Mbeki, followed by all the ANC leaders who had been imprisoned with Mandela in the so-called "Rivonia trial" in 1964. Soon the entire leadership – the actual ANC leaders, Oliver Tambo, and his deputy, Mbeki, were running the party from exile in Lusaka – was given its freedom, with the exception of Mandela. "Everyone behaved themselves, and there had been no return to violence," he says. The way was now open for the release of Mandela.

In December de Klerk sent for him and Mandela was smuggled in through the basement garage of the presidential office in Cape Town (later occupied by Mandela), and the officials withdrew to leave the two of them on their own. Each later recorded they sat for a moment "weighing each other up". Like everyone else, de Klerk had no real idea what Mandela looked like, because there had been only a few secretly snatched photos of him for 20 years. He found himself staring at a man much taller than he expected, slightly stooped with age (he was 71), and dignified, courteous and utterly self-confident. Up to this point he had regarded him as "a grain of sand trapped in the oyster", the almost mythical hero who had posed so serious an irritant to his predecessors. Now here he was in the flesh.

"So this," de Klerk recalls saying to himself, "is Nelson Mandela." By the end of the meeting he had come to a remarkably similar conclusion as Mandela, both later consciously echoing Mrs Thatcher's famous remark about Gorbachev: "Here was a man I could do business with." Next time they met, de Klerk promised, they would discuss his release.

Mandela for his part wrote to his ANC colleagues in Lusaka that he had "taken the measure of Mr de Klerk, just as I had with new prison commanders when I was on Robben Island". De Klerk, he wrote, seemed to represent "a true departure from the National Party politicians of the past". In short, he was a man "we could do business with".

They did not meet again until after de Klerk's opening address, but behind the scenes there was frenetic activity as negotiations for the release accelerated. Both men had separately, and for different reasons, decided there was no alternative but to talk. Mandela later recorded that "it simply did not make sense for both sides to lose millions of lives in a conflict that was unnecessary", while de Klerk had concluded that he could not win a military victory either and must negotiate with the enemy before the economy collapsed.

All of this was leading up to his 2 February speech, which de Klerk worked on in a long break over Christmas and the New Year at his holiday home in the seaside resort of Hermanus, east of Cape Town. Several weeks before, he had taken his cabinet for a bosberaad, a conference in the bush where for days they discussed and debated the increasing limited options facing South Africa and its ruling white government. Everyone now accepted there had to be change, and that it had to incorporate negotiations with the ANC. The reality of a full democracy at some stage in the future now seemed inevitable, but none of them had any inkling of how far de Klerk, who had made statement after statement saying he would not accept majority rule, would go down that road. Even he had not made that leap yet.

Walking on the beaches over Christmas, de Klerk reflected on the journey which had taken him here, and the rocky and uncertain fate which lay ahead. His Huguenot ancestors arrived in the Cape in 1686 and the story of the de Klerks since had been, as he says, "the story of the emerging Afrikaner nation". They were farmers who took part in the legendary Voortek, when their leader Piet Retief led his column of ox wagons over the Drakensberg Mountains to escape British rule. Three de Klerks died with Retief in the great kraal of the Zulu chief Dingane in 1837, an event so deeply embedded in Afrikaner culture that 16 December, the day of the massacre, was named "The Day of the Vow" or "Dingane's Day", which is still celebrated. His grandfather was twice captured by the British in the Boer War, and later became a founder member of the National Party in 1914. De Klerk's own father was a minister in Verwoerd's government, and FW himself became an MP at 37 and was appointed to Vorster's cabinet five years later. Nobody's Afrikaner credentials were stronger than his.

"For many years I supported the concept of separate states," he says now. "I believed it could bring justice for everyone, including the blacks who would determine their own lives inside their own states. But by the early 1980s I had concluded this would not work and was leading to injustice and that the system had to change. I still believed in 1990 that the independent states had a place, but in the end the ANC had put so much pressure on them that they didn't want to go on. Had we offered Buthelezi a Zululand with Richards Bay harbour, he would have accepted that. But the whites wanted to hang on to as much as they could and were too greedy."

He had, he says, "long come to the realisation that we were involved in a downward spiral of increasing violence and we could not hang on indefinitely. We were involved in an armed struggle where there would be no winners. The key decision I had to take now, for myself, was whether to make a paradigm shift." By the time he was back in Cape Town in early January, he had taken that decision.

He finally took the full cabinet into his confidence just two days before his speech, swearing them to secrecy which was vital if he was going to achieve his objective of maximum surprise and impact. His press advisers were told to play down expectations, rather than build them up. In the outside world, the only subject anyone wanted to talk about was Mandela's imminent release. The media was arriving in great numbers, including the biggest names in the business: Ted Koppel decided to broadcast his entire ABC Nightline programme from South Africa for a whole week, and famous anchormen, editors and correspondents all took up residence in the crowded city. It was slated to be the event of the decade – except it didn't happen that day. The media would have to sit around – no hardship in mid-summer Cape Town – for another nine days before Mandela walked free nine days later.

"We had planned for February 2 in great detail, and it is remarkable it didn't leak," says de Klerk now. "My objective that day was to convince both our friends and our foes alike that we had made the paradigm shift." That morning, he says, he awoke with a "sense of destiny – I knew South Africa would never be the same again but I also believed I was doing the right thing at the right time."

In the parliament, the public gallery was crowded, and television cameras relayed the proceedings live to South Africans who had stopped to watch and listen. De Klerk calmly waited while the speaker opened the session with the traditional prayer. Then he walked over to the podium where his speech was already in place and began, speaking half in English, half in Afrikaans.

When he sat down 30 minutes later, the ANC and 30 other political parties, including the Communist Party, had been unbanned unconditionally; the death penalty was suspended; the state of emergency was lifted; trade unions were allowed to function freely; all political prisoners were to be released immediately and restrictions on political exiles were lifted; and, perhaps most importantly of all, de Klerk opened the way for South Africa's first fully democratic election in 300 years by promising "a totally new and just constitutional dispensation in which every inhabitant will enjoy equal rights, treatment and opportunity".

He didn't mention Mandela until late in the speech and only then in terms of the potentially important part he could play in negotiations, and the fact that he had already declared himself willing to participate in peaceful discussions (Mandela, offered his release five years before on condition he renounce violence, had flatly refused). But now, de Klerk said, he had taken a firm decision to release Mandela unconditionally, but not yet: "unfortunately a short passage of time is unavoidable". That would be days rather than weeks, he indicated, to a huge groan from the press.

He ended with an impassioned invitation to the ANC and all the other parties:

"Walk through the open door and take your place at the negotiating table."

In short, in half an hour, de Klerk had announced a commitment to a full democracy, with majority rule in a unitary state which would include the homelands, an independent judiciary, a commitment to equal justice for all under a human rights manifesto, no discrimination, and a free economy. The entire edifice of apartheid, so hated around the world, had been dismantled in a single speech.

He didn't have to wait long for the reaction. The opposition Democratic party roared its approval while there was disbelief along his own backbenches and fury from the Conservatives. The veteran editor, Allister Sparks, given a preview of the speech earlier in the day, gasped: "My God, he's done it all." On the streets of Cape Town and in the townships, wild celebrations went on into the night. Newspaper sellers quickly sold out of the Cape Argus with its headline "ANC UNBANNED", while Tutu giggled: "Just wait till de Klerk sits down with Tambo. They will discover how South African they both are!"

Messages of congratulations began to pour in from world leaders: from Margaret Thatcher, one of the few remaining relatively sympathetic voices, and presidents Bush, Soares, Mitterand, Kaunda and the UN secretary-general, Perez de Cuellar. There were even rumours the Pope might pay South Africa a visit, inconceivable only an hour before (he never did).

Mandela, watching on TV, later remarked: "It was a breathtaking moment, for in one sweeping action he had virtually normalised the situation in South Africa. Our world had changed overnight." There would be no more arrests for being a member of the ANC, no more persecution for carrying its green, yellow and black banner and "for the first time in almost 30 years, my picture and my words, and those of all my banned comrades, could appear in South African newspapers".

Not everyone was pleased of course. The reactionary Conservative Party and the right-wing of his own party vowed immediate revenge and called for a vote of no confidence. Die Patriot, organ of the Conservative Party, accused de Klerk of treason and naïveté towards the communists, still its bête-noir. In far-off Pretoria and the Afrikaans heartland in the Orange Free State, there would be rallies where demonstrators chanted "Hang de Klerk, hang Mandela" and for good measure, in case they felt left out, "hang the Jews".

But the die was cast and there was now no going back. Three years later Mandela and de Klerk went together to Oslo to receive their Nobel Peace Prizes. And a year after that, South Africa got its first black president.

De Klerk today: Confidant to current leaders

FW de Klerk, now aged 73, lives in Cape Town with his second wife Elita, his comfortable house distinguishable only from his wealthy neighbours by the security guards who alternate between him and his fellow ex-president, Nelson Mandela. His big interest today is the Global Leadership Fund, which he founded five years ago with the object of improving political leadership around the world. Its membership comprises some 24 former world leaders, including Joe Clark (Canada), Michel Rocard (France), Mike Moore (New Zealand) and Jose Maria Aznar (Spain), an extraordinary network of former heads of government who want to give something back by way of mentoring, guiding and helping new leaders who have no experience of government or how to cope with the hundreds of international agencies who turn up to clamour for their attention. The GLF has no agenda, and seeks nothing back (it even pays its own expenses from donations), often encouraging leaders to take credit for initiatives it has created for them. Countries such as Colombia and East Timor have acknowledged the GLF's support, but for many others it remains confidential.

Apartheid: Its roots and demise

1948. After decades of conflict between gold and diamond-hungry Brits and Boers – and a rising nationalist movement headed by the African National Congress (ANC) – a policy of apartheid (separateness) is adopted when the National Party takes power.

1960. Seventy black demonstrators are killed at Sharpeville. The ANC, which has responded to apartheid with civil disobedience led by Nelson Mandela, is banned. The following year, Mandela starts a campaign of sabotage with an ANC military wing.

1964. After his arrest two years earlier and subsequent imprisonment, Mandela is handed a life sentence. He spends 18 of his 27 years in prison on Robben Island, where he studies law and seals his status as the hero of the anti-apartheid movement.

1976. Black anger boils over in riots that become known as the Soweto uprising – South Africa's largest and deadliest anti-apartheid protests. An estimated 600 people, including child demonstrators, are killed in clashes that rage for three weeks.

1990. A year after FW de Klerk replaces PW Botha as president and segregation begins to end, the ANC is unbanned and Mandela is set free. Nine days earlier, FW de Klerk announces the end to apartheid and the coming of a "new South Africa" to a stunned all-white parliament.

1994. Mandela becomes President as the ANC wins South Africa's first non-racial elections. The country is restored to the Commonwealth, sanctions are lifted and South Africa takes a seat at the UN General Assembly after an absence of 20 years.

Simon Usborne

Post a comment
Thursday, 28th Jan 2010

Let's break both iron laws

One of the supposed iron laws of a recession is that crime goes up. Well that's what most people said until now.

Crime has fallen over the past year in the UK in the teeth of this recession. And while a lot of people are rightly still worried about crime the new crime stats are important. Rather than just publishing the Government figures the BBC reporter Mark Easton makes interesting reading on the subject. (see below)

Another iron rule has been that support for extremist’s parties has also risen. Having nicked the crime trend I hope we can also break that second societal consequence of the recession. After all this recession wasn't caused by immigrants or any of the usual right wing scape goats but by bankers many of them very close to home in Scotland’s two biggest banks.

Let me know your view. I have put below the full info from Mark Easton's BBC blog.

Conservative estimates on violence

Mark Easton | 12:12 UK time, Monday, 25 January 2010

Are the Tories being honest with their claims on violent crime? Last week, David Cameron told me that one reason he could justify the phrase "broken society" was because of "significant" increases in violent crime, notably gun and knife crime in Britain.

When I challenged him to produce the evidence, his party press office sent the BBC a list of statistics.

It emerges that the only way the Conservative leader can back up his claims is to ignore the klaxon warning attached to the statistics following changes in the way police record violent incidents in England and Wales.

Tory Central Office e-mailed this claim to me:

The document cited, however, includes this massive caveat:

And yet, that is exactly what Mr Cameron appears to do.

The NCRS wasn't some sneaky ministerial trick to massage violent crime figures. Quite the opposite: it made violent crime look much, much worse.

The Home Office had been accused of under-estimating violence for years because the decision as to whether an incident was a violent crime had been taken by police. So, for instance, a drunk with a fat lip staggers into a police station and claims that he has been the victim of assault. Under the old system, the desk sergeant might have offered a weary shrug and said that the police had better things to worry about.

After 2002, though, officers were obliged to record all incidents as violent crimes if the alleged victim said that is what it was. The aim was to stop police fiddling the figures and to get a better picture of violence. The obvious result was to send the statistics shooting up.

In 2002, there were 230,704 recorded incidents of "violence against the person with injury". The following year, the number recorded shot up to 372,124. Three years later, it had risen still further to 543,605.

Now, you might argue that the later figures are more reflective of the level of violent crime, but what you cannot do is compare one with the other to identify a trend. To do so may only reveal the effect of new counting rules, rather than any real change in the level of violence.

It might be frustrating for politicians who want to compare today's picture of violence with the situation when Labour came to power, but the independent officials who oversee and quality-check the stats are clear: you should not do it.

Fortunately, there is a measure of violent crime that has not changed in almost 30 years - the British Crime Survey. The BCS regularly asks 46,000 adults in England and Wales about their experience of crime in the previous year. This graph shows what people have been saying about violence over the past three decades. The story is of falling and then stable violence for over a decade.

The BCS is not perfect - until very recently it didn't interview 10-15 year-olds and, obviously, it cannot talk to victims of homicide. But 650 murders a year out of more than two million crimes would barely change the graph at all. And it is inconceivable that offences of violence against very young children are so numerous and increasing at such a rate that they change the story the figures tell.

Mr Cameron specifically mentioned increases in gun and knife crime - issues which he knows play directly into voters' fears that our country is becoming less safe. What is his evidence that either is getting worse?

Figures on knife crime in England and Wales have only been collected for a couple of years and the data so far suggests the number of offences is falling or stable. When we asked Tory Central Office to justify the claims on knives, a spokesperson sent us this:

The figures are plucked from the latest homicide figures for England and Wales [629Kb PDF] which contain a table dedicated to "apparent method of killing". The category the Conservatives select is "sharp instrument" (which includes glasses and bottles as well as knives) but does show an increase from 201 in 1998/9 to 255 in 2008/9.

Is this a story of escalating knife crime? Every murder is a tragedy, but homicide is at its lowest level for a decade and the figure for stabbings has been higher in six of the last 10 years. As the Conservatives concede, such murders actually fell 6% year-on-year.

Gun crime? Well, using the methodology they employ with knives, the homicide data reveals the fewest people were shot dead last year in the period since Labour came to power - 39 victims. It was 46 in 1998/99 and 96 in 2001/2.

On this occasion, however, the Conservatives select a different category. Here is what the Central Office e-mail argues:

Is this evidence of "significant" increases in gun crime? If one stands back to look at the whole picture, this is what one sees:

Even if one only focuses on the dark black line and ignores the crimes committed with air weapons, it is hard to justify a claim of a "significant" increase in gun crime.

The argument that "gun crime resulting in injury" has increased 104% again requires us to ignore the entreaties of the statisticians with regard to the changes in the counting system. Looking at the table below, one can see the numerical gymnastics the Conservatives have had to perform to reach their conclusion.

If one avoids the problem of the new recording system by comparing 2008/9 with 2002/3, the story of gun crime injuries is one of decline.

We are going to get a lot of this during the election - the use of what Winston Churchill called "political statistics".

It is a subject I talked about on Radio 4's More or Less programme last week (you can listen below or subscribe to the podcast) and, on your behalf, I intend to keep a gimlet eye on any numerical nonsense as we head for polling day.
Post a comment
Thursday, 28th Jan 2010

Papal visit more likely

I saw in today’s papers that a visit by the Pope to Scotland is looking more likely.

As some readers of this blog may be aware I have been asked by the Prime Minister to organise what may be a visit later this year to both Scotland and England with one of the big events being the beatification of Cardinal Newman at a ceremony during a possible English leg of the visit.

Over the weeks I have been meeting with faith leaders and chairing ministerial meetings in Downing Street to put together the plans. But this is all the preparatory work in the hope that the Vatican agrees to a visit. It will be for them to decide.

My view is that this would be a beautiful event for all of Scotland that will be remembered for decades to come. Unlike the visit of Pope John Paul we would like this to be an official visit. One of the things most people forget is his was an unofficial visit at the time of the Falklands war and the visit was only finally confirmed three days in advance (although all the plans had been put in place long beforehand).

So, while we would get more than a three day notice of any papal visit this year, it is too early to confirm the plans. We are still working hard on them and await a response from the Vatican. I thought some readers would find this update interesting.
Post a comment
Monday, 25th Jan 2010

Help to get back into work.

We must keep investing to help everyone back into work

We’ve got to keep investing in jobs through the recovery. I am backing the Future Jobs Fund which will bring more jobs to the area, a fund that that David Cameron wants to slash.

In previous recessions unemployed young people were left on the scrapheap. We can’t let this happen again.

That’s why I support Labour’s guarantees - an education or training place for young people up to 18. And a job or training place for 18-24 year olds out of work for six months. Both funded by a one off tax on bankers' bonuses.

Extra investment has helped keep unemployment round here at 2.6 per cent – lower than 5 per cent in the 90’s recessions. We must keep investing to help everyone back into work.
Post a comment
Tuesday, 19th Jan 2010

Haiti

Like everyone I have been staggered by the Haiti disaster, the crisis is catastrophic in nature and apocalyptic in scale. The death toll rises every minute and there are reports of unimaginable conditions on the ground.

We discussed this at Cabinet this morning. What is different about this tragedy is the near total collapse of the Haitian government, unlike in Indonesia after the tsunami where the governing infrastructure, police and army remained mostly intact. That is why the international response is so crucial.

The UK government has now trebled aid and we sent dozens of search and rescue staff immediately. Other nations are also doing their bit particularly the USA who have deployed an enormous military and humanitarian operation. Some may be squeamish about this (some journalists have been sceptical about US aims) but no one else can do the heavy lifting that this tragedy needs. The UN can't do this at the best of times but especially not at these worst of times when a many of their staff have been killed and their HQ destroyed.

But it isn't just up to governments. There has rightly been an enormous peoples response. My local newsagent and my church are amongst those who were collecting money at the weekend. The people of Scotland have responded and shown their generosity by helping to raise more than £1 million to the Haiti Earthquake Appeal managed by the Disasters Emergency Committee.

I am proud of Scotland – at a time when many people are struggling they still have the humanity to help others who are far worse off than themselves. The first week or two is important as the need to deal with the humanitarian needs of water, food and shelter will help reduce further deaths and suffering and help combat the potential threat of disease amongst the survivors. But this is just the first stage, once food, water and shelter issues have been resolved Haiti will still need help from around the world with rebuilding their lives.

This is more than just the buildings and businesses, it means utilities and food supplies – the things you and I take for granted. I am sure that the people of Scotland will still feel the need to assist others in recovering what we take for granted everyday.


Click here for more information on how you can help




Post a comment
Monday, 18th Jan 2010

Politics of hate

The newspapers said at the weekend the Scottish leader of the BNP is to stand in East Renfrewshire at the General Election.

I didn’t ever think I would have to debate a fascist party. I thought that type of politics was a thing of the past but that poison is back in the form of the BNP.

They are now planning to stand against me and its time for them to give some answers about their denial of the Holocaust and their hatred of immigrants. Their politics are alien to our British way of life – where we try to see people for who they are rather than their skin colour, nationality or religion. The BNP’s Nazi salutes and Holocaust denials turn my stomach.

These people are coming here to disrupt our community. East Renfrewshire is a great place to live and bring up a family. We also have really good relations between all of our faith communities including Christians, Jews, Muslims and Sikhs. The BNP are out to ruin that by peddling their poison of racial hatred.


Post a comment
Thursday, 14th Jan 2010

Football: Cultural interchange

In the House of Commons on Wednesday I was asked about Scottish football and cultural interchange. Here’s what I said:

“What would enhance cross-border cultural exchange is a return of the Scotland versus England friendly football matches. I think that the home internationals will return shortly, with Ireland replacing England, and that there is now a commitment to a return of the Scotland versus England football matches. I have spoken to the Scottish Football Association about that.

There was an agreement to have such an arrangement in 2008, but Scotland withdrew from it. Having grown up around memories of the Wembley Wizards of 1928 and 1967, Kenny Dalglish’s great goals at Wembley and occasional England victories at Hampden, I think that it would be a remarkable sporting event and a highlight in the football calendar, so I say, “Bring it on.”

Let me know what you think, by leaving a comment or voting on my online poll.
Post a comment
Thursday, 7th Jan 2010

Labour v Tory - real divide in British politics

I didn't see the BBC news last night, but the normally reliable and well informed Nick Robinson said that I and 5 other members of the Cabinet were involved in some sort of plot against the Prime Minister. This is utter rubbish, and if the BBC had bothered to contact me about it I would have told them so. In fact, if they had bothered to contact themselves they would have known so. I gave an interview to the BBC in Scotland at 2pm yesterday where I made clear any talk of plots and secret ballots was a total distraction from the focus we all need to have on protecting jobs and assisting the recovery. This is particularly the case in Scotland where the SNP government is simply not doing enough.

Yesterday Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon took it upon themselves to indulge in the total distraction of demanding a vote on the Prime Minister's future. It was a ludicrous thing to do, and the response from the vast majority of Labour MPs has confirmed that view. Our number one priority as Labour politicians should be working hard to get Scotland and Britain out of the recession, so the unemployed can get back to work. As I made clear in television, radio and newspaper interviews yesterday, the political divide in Britain is between Labour and Tory, and shouldn't be Labour versus Labour. We should focus our political attention on David Cameron's Tories, who are less popular today in Scotland than Mrs Thatcher ever was. Yesterday's tiny plot was wrong, as was the BBC reporting of it - neither should have happened.
Post a comment
Monday, 7th Dec 2009

More services for our local Post Offices

I back more services for our Post Offices. (Click here to see more info on my local consultation launch)  

Post Offices are a great British institution that has been part of our communities for over three hundred years. I know how deeply people in East Renfrewshire care about the future of our Post Offices.

At a time when some banks and financial services companies are seeking to reduce face to face contact with customers, the Post Office stands out.

It offers a trusted brand, and has more branches than the high street banks combined. It is ideally placed to bring banking services back to the heart of people’s communities.

So I am supporting plans for new financial products and services to be made available at our Post Offices in East Renfrewshire. Like current accounts and children’s saving accounts.

I support this as it will give people in East Renfrewshire access to a full range of banking products at an institution we all trust and value.

I want people in East Renfrewshire to have their say. The Labour Government is looking at this right now, so it is an opportunity for us to tell Government Ministers what we want and need from our Post Offices.


 

Posted by Jim on Monday, 7th Dec 2009 - 2 Comments
Post a comment
Thursday, 3rd Dec 2009

Bankers bonusses

The banking world has to wake up to bonus payments, especially those who have been bailed out by the taxpayer. It is incredible that after having £25bn of public money to keep them open they are thinking it is business as usual It is not.

The public have borne the brunt of their past decisions and kept them afloat when they where on the verge of collapse. It is immoral to think that as the rest of the country struggles through a recession they can continue to pay themselves super bonus’ and threaten to quit if the public don’t agree.

I think that the veto UKFI hold is important and should be used – we would be neglecting out duty as a shareholder if we didn’t have this power in reserve.
Post a comment

Showing pages 1 of 20

website by Hudson Berkley Reinhart Ltd