Lynne Featherstone MP likes to describe herself rather grandly as ”Minister for Equalities” In fact, she is a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (usually abbreviated to PUSS in civil service parlance) in the Home Office.  During her pre-Ministerial life she had a reputation as a campaigner for whom no gesture was too demeaning for her to make it.

Now, as a Minister, she tries to behave all-statesmanlike.

And today, she was called to the House of Commons despatch box to answer an Urgent Question granted by the Speaker because a policy change had been announced to the media before it had been reported to Parliament.

And the announcement?  This was that the Conservative Coalition, of which she is proud to serve as Equalites figleaf/Minister, has decided not to implement legislation passed by Parliament (under the Labour Government) earlier this year which would have required public bodies to take action to address socio-economic disadvantage.

And the justification?  There was no need for such a duty and to include such a duty in Section 1 of the Equality Act 2010 was “an empty gesture”.

Apparently, Lynne Featherstone MP – the Minister – wants to reassure us as she put it today:

“Equality is at the heart of what this coalition Government are all about.”

Of course, that is not what Lynne Featherstone MP – the non-Minister – said last year in the debate on the Second Reading of the Equality Bill.  Then she called for even more powers in the Bill.  Her words were:

“The Government should have made legislative proposals to tackle socio-economic inequality in a Bill of its own”.—[Official Report, 11 May 2009; Vol. 492, c. 579.]

As Fiona McTaggart MP for the Opposition pointed out after Lynne Featherstone’s public u-turn in the House of Commons this morning:

“Dropping the socio-economic duty was not in the coalition agreement. It was a major part of the Equality Act 2010, which Parliament passed only this year. While we know that the Conservatives have never wanted Government to take responsibility for building a more equal society, that is not the view that the hon. Lady herself has previously taken.”

And asked:

“What proposals will the Minister now bring forward to assess the impact of Government policies on the most disadvantaged? Despite her fine words, is it not true that this Government simply do not care about socio-economic inequality? The Institute for Fiscal Studies has proved that the Government are hitting the poorest hardest. If there is no duty, how will people know about the impact of Government decisions on the most disadvantaged?

With this duty in place, public bodies would have had to think about what they should be doing to improve life chances. We all know about Sure Start; indeed, the Minister referred to it. We know its fantastic work, and how its impact is greatest on the most disadvantaged children. Councils would have had a duty to take that into account if they were thinking of closing children’s centres, but she is now saying that they will not. Does she think that is right?  …

The Minister said that we cannot deliver inequality by legislation, but the simple truth is that the Government do not believe that they have any responsibility to deliver a fairer society. Of course, legislation does not work like magic, but it is a key way that Government can change things. Road safety legislation does not stop all accidents, but it does make our roads safer and it does save children’s lives. This duty would have helped to make our society fairer, and it would have given poorer people a fair chance, so why is she scrapping it?”

Answer came there none.

This was drawn to my attention …..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI&feature=player_embedded

It is a sign that a politician has achieved a certain status when folk songs are written about them.

George Osborne’s cup must thererefore be running over about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BejSPeP3lFE&feature=related

Staff in the Government Whips’ Office of the House of Lords have opened up a home-made cake stall today in the Ministerial corridor of the Lords to raise money for the BBC’s Children in Need appeal.  By 11.30am large slabs of chocolate cake had already been sold.

This will no doubt be cited as proof that the Big Society can work anywhere …..

Luke Akehurst has written an excellent analysis at Labour Uncut of the way in which extreme groupings can hijack demonstrations for their own purposes.  Their activities must not be allowed to detract from the message of the vast majority of those demonstrating.

However, if – as seems likely – we are entering an era of more frequent demonstrations, there are important lessons here for both those organising demonstrations and for the police.

Victoria Coren’s column in today’s Observer shows why she should be the new Shadow Minister for invective.

First, she sums up Nick Clegg:

“A couple of weeks ago, Nick Clegg told the Lib Dem conference: “We haven’t changed our liberal values.”

We know what everyone in the hall was thinking. They were thinking: “Oh hurry up and finish, so I can get drunk and have a disappointing affair with a lobbyist.”

But what was Nick Clegg thinking? At last year’s conference, he promised to scrap tuition fees. It turns out that by “scrap” he meant “the opposite of scrap”.

We knew it was a Humpty Dumpty election. On all sides, the words meant just what they chose them to mean, neither more nor less. That was standard campaign trickery, but it continues now! By “we haven’t changed our liberal values”, Nick Clegg means “we have changed our liberal values.”"

And then moves on to Vince Cable:

“Vince Cable told the same conference that he was “shining a harsh light into the murky world of corporate behaviour”, describing City financiers as “spivs and gamblers”. May I say, on behalf of spivs and gamblers, that I found this deeply offensive. Nevertheless, it promised a stern new approach to those who punted away the money we used to spend on child benefit and healthcare.

But the words are meaningless. Cable has only one hand on the swivelling spotlight while the other signs agreements to axe everything he promised to protect, because the money was vomited into the banking system and it seems impossible to recoup it from there. We’re not even being protected against this happening again. All the talk is of cuts, none of it is about regulation. So what’s the point of the light? To help the spivs see better, as they extract fivers from our wallets? You might just as well give a child strawberry ice cream for every meal, while promising to keep a close eye on its terrible diet.”

Then it’s David Cameron’s turn:

“David Cameron even makes patriotic, tearjerking speeches to “stir a spirit of national unity and resolve”, as if this were a giant episode of Children in Need. Give up your pocket money for Bankers in Need. BIN, I think, is a handy acronym. Come on, families! Join in, jobless! Wheel this way, disabled folk! Let’s all gather together and throw our money towards the BIN!

It’s an old chestnut, but always worth another roasting: remember to keep being insulted by how glibly they demand our sacrifices without paying us the respect of speaking frankly. They dissembled before the election and they’re dissembling now. When they say good morning, they mean it’s midnight. When they say: “I’ve made you a cup of tea”, they mean: “I’ve just weed in your coffee.”"

And finally she leaves us with a metaphor I will find hard to forget:

“Some people hoped the Lib Dems would act as balance in the new government – if not obstructing controversial policy, at least speaking honestly about it. But is it any wonder Nick Clegg wasn’t doing that at their conference? Chillingly, he and his speech had to be vetted by David Cameron.

I assume that’s “vetted” in the traditional sense of vet, ie to have a gloved hand up his backside.”

And the cartoon from Peter Riddell is pretty good too:

I have taken an interest in the safety of children and young people using social networking sites for some time, so I was interested to attend the launch by DigitalME of Safe, a new social networking safety programme for primary schools.

The programme is:

“designed to support primary school pupils in learning the essential skills to enjoy social networking, whilst remaining safe online. With children sharing content online and joining social networks at an increasingly younger age, there is a greater need to ensure primary aged pupils are equipped with the knowledge to understand potential risks and the skills to manage their digital footprint.”

It provides downloadable teacher resources so that primary school pupils can be given fun activities that help them improve their digital literacy skills.  As teachers were heavily involved in its preparation, it is designed to meet their needs, to fit in with the curriculum and aims to satisfy headteachers’ requirements (eg. a plaque to put up in the school hall) as well.

The programme is essentially free (although there is a charge for the plaque) and it certainly looks like a worth-while initiative to me.  I wish it well.

I have just returned from the announcement by Harriet Harman, as Acting Leader of the Labour Party, of the result of the ballot for Labour’s nomination for London Mayor.  Ken Livingstone won convincingly by more than 2:1 over Oona King following a lengthy campaign in which huge numbers of London Labour Party members took part.

I had always been sure that Ken would win but the margin was substantially better than the 3:2 I had expected.

It is a very good basis for the forthcoming campaign, particularly following Ooona King’s very gracious and fulsome concession speech declaring her support for the successful candidate.

As London locks down for the arrival of the Pope in Westminster, I have settled down with the perfect antidote:  “The Case of the Pope: Vatican Accountability for Human Rights Abuse” by Geoffrey Robertson QC.

The excellent Stewart Room has drawn my attention to this video – a salutory warning about where the Coalition Government’s belief in out-sourcing and the “Big Society” may be going.