This week Mayor of London Boris Johnson published Raising the capital, the report of the London Finance Commission that he appointed to look into the GLA’s revenue raising powers last year. Raising the capital is a bold pitch for greater control of London’s tax revenues, and a very brave affront to the Chancellor who, in just a few weeks’ time, will pronounce on how much money the Mayor will have to spend over the next three years.

The cross-party Commission, which was led by ubiquitous London expert Professor Tony Travers of the LSE, urges the Treasury to not only grant the Mayor greater freedom to borrow money to invest in capital projects such as transport or housing but also to devolve to London government all the money raised in London via property taxes (which includes council tax, stamp duty, business rates, the annual tax on enveloped dwellings and capital gains property development tax )and the power to set the level of these taxes. The Commission also recommends giving the Mayor the ability to consider introducing new smaller taxes and suggests that in future London government could potentially be given a share of London’s income tax revenues. The property tax receipts for London alone are worth an estimated £12.3bn this financial year alone – roughly equivalent to half of all GLA and borough spending (excluding schools) currently funded via central government grants.

To make its case, the Commission’s report highlights how limited London’s fiscal autonomy is compared to other UK regions and other comparable cities around the world. For example, while just 7 per cent of the taxes raised in London are retained by either the Mayor or the boroughs the equivalent figure for New York is over 50 per cent.

The issue that is no doubt playing on the mind of the Chancellor is not so much what happens if Boris is granted these far-reaching tax powers, but what happens if – god forbid – the voters of London decide to ditch the classical city-state of Borisopolis in favour of becoming the People’s Republic of London under a Labour Mayor at a future election? Boris’ capacity for mischief making pales in comparison to the conflict that could be created between a Conservative Government nationally and Labour Mayor with financial semi-independence.

Party grey beards will remember the bruising battles between the Thatcher government and Ken Livingstone’s Greater London Council in the early 1980s. The GLC’s attempts to raise the rates in order to cut public transport fares by a third led to a lengthy and costly legal battle and ultimately contributed to the government’s decision to abolish the GLC (and with it city-wide local government for London) and split its powers between Whitehall and the boroughs. Indeed, the radicalism of the GLC and its impact on Labour’s reputation nationally was a major reason why Tony Blair resisted Ken Livingstone’s bid for the Labour nomination to be Mayor in 2000 and why Gordon Brown’s Treasury initially refused to hand control of London Underground to the newly devolved government of London.

This is not the first time that Boris has floated radical proposals for greater powers. In 2010, following the formation of the Coalition Government, he published an ambitious manifesto urging that the GLA be given control of the Royal Parks, the Port of London Authority, and rail franchises. While some of his devolution proposals were successful, the Mayor failed to realise any of the more ambitious demands (the Royal Parks, the PLA and rail franchising all remain under Whitehall’s control). With just three years left until he leaves office, Boris does not have much time to make progress on these latest, and far more radical, tax proposals.

PLMR’s consultant team includes members of all three major political parties.  In the interest of stimulating healthy debate, unmoderated,  personal views are very much encouraged in blog-posts.

For as long as I can remember, I have wanted to know what makes people tick. This drove me to study Psychology and brought me to the world of neurology, where I have worked for a campaigning charity, and now for a private neurodiagnostic healthcare provider. Two very different sides of the fence, some might say, but I’ve found it amazing how much the two sides have in common, such as a will to provide the best level of care.

The key change for me is that in my last role I campaigned for better models of care, linked up services, and clear patient pathways; now – not to toot my own company’s horn too much – I get to provide it. I am very privileged to work for a private healthcare provider, but I’m very aware that not every neurology patient has access to this level of care. They key question is why not?

I’m going to discount the first and obvious answer of funding – people with neurological conditions often require long-term care, and research has shown that investment in prevention and management of these conditions leads to reduced emergency admissions. What about workforce? Not necessarily; my company’s consultants all practice in the NHS, as well as privately. But how do you get to them?

I’ve spoken to many service users who have been to see their GP, had emergency admissions and still have not been referred to a neurologist for diagnosis. This isn’t a disregard for their welfare, but an indicator that knowledge and understanding of neurological conditions is not widespread enough, particularly for rarer conditions.

Right now we are in the middle of Action for Brain Injury Week (13-19 May), but a quick spot check of my friends showed that most didn’t know that. However, the majority could tell me when Breast Cancer Awareness Month is.

For me, the crux of any challenge is awareness; it influences political understanding and action, and this one factor has significantly improved cancer services. 2014 is the European Brain Council’s Year of the Brain, which I hope will help neurology get some of the profile it needs. For now, please spread the word about Action for Brain Injury Week!

Tahani Saridar is General Manager of Wimbledon NeuroCare.

The 1,100 local and regional newspapers with 1,600 websites who are the subjects of this readership play an invaluable role in fostering a sense of community, celebrating local achievements and highlighting local issues.  They also hold local government to account, reporting on Council procedures even when no member of the public is present in the gallery.

They know their local areas in great depth and can utilise this to provide insight that is often called upon by their peers in the national press – witness, for example, how often a regional journalist will give local flavour to a story being covered by the national media.  Similarly, journalists from local newspapers are usually the first on the ground whenever a big story breaks.

On a more light hearted note, local news outlets continue to provide an outlet for quirky stories that would not be published elsewhere – some of my personal favourites can be found here, here and best of all, here.  Rather than a sad indictment on the state of local journalism as the naysayers would have you believe, I prefer to think of local press as a bastion of water cooler stories that would not run in a mainstream media that is all too obsessed with bad news.

In a post Leveson media landscape, the loss of local newspapers would be a great tragedy, and result in less scrutiny being placed upon those in positions of power who we trust to make decisions on our behalf.  Freely distributed hand-outs from local authorities that heap praise upon their publisher and verge on propaganda are not adequate substitutes.

Fortunately, the value of local newspapers is recognised at the highest levels of government.  Vince Cable praised their value in attracting Regional Growth Fund money at a conference earlier in the month, and Andrew Percy MP recently complimented the Scunthorpe Telegraph for its campaign for defibrillators to be installed in workplaces and schools.  Even Queen Elizabeth herself has described them as “…a fundamental part of the fabric of our communities”.  Well said, ma’am.

Mental Health Awareness Week runs from the 13th- 19th of May, encouraging us to be more aware and talk about mental health issues – both for those who have ‘diagnosed’ mental health issues as well as promoting good mental health for all.

Mental health issues affect as many as one out of four of us in any given year. Given this startling statistic, it is evident that we all need to be more aware of the importance of good mental health, and be able to discuss the issue and remove the stigma attached to mental health issues.

Recent debate on the issue of mental illness has been considering whether or not we should reclassify mental illness. The Society’s Division of Clinical Psychology (DCP) yesterday issued a statement calling for a ‘paradigm shift’ in how issues of mental health are understood. The statement argues that “psychiatric diagnosis is often presented as an objective statement of fact, but is, in essence, a clinical judgment based on observation and interpretation of behaviour and self-report, and thus subject to variation and bias”. This will effectively cast doubt on the theory that those with mental illnesses are able to be treated solely by doctors using drugs. Experts have argued for some time previous to this that the current system relies too much on medical approaches for mental health problems and consequently underplays the social and psychological causes. Whilst the DCP is not used in this country, it is hugely influential, so the controversy and debate is set to continue.

This year, Mental Health Awareness Week’s campaign in the UK is focused on promoting good mental health through physical activity and exercise. While we all know that we should exercise to prevent obesity and other chronic illnesses, it is less well know that exercise also benefits our mental wellbeing. This is because exercise releases serotonin – the chemical in your brain which contributes to happiness - which enables us to deal better with stress and negative emotions and promotes a higher self-esteem. So now there’s one more reason for us to stop avoiding the gym!

For more information on how you can support the campaign, visit http://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/our-work/mentalhealthawarenessweek

And initially many Eurosceptics in the Party and the press would have been pleased by what they heard.  However as the memory of the rhetoric died down and they started looking more closely at what Cameron had proposed, their agitation grew once more.

Europe – it’s an issue that can be relied on to have the Conservatives tearing chunks out of themselves.  No one is claiming that other parties don’t suffer from their own totemic issues, but what’s fascinating about the Conservative in-fighting is that it’s raised its ugly head so early on in a Conservative led Government, potentially a new record for political rebellion.

Eurosceptic Conservatives would argue that should Great Britain be free from the shackles of the bureaucratic monstrosity of the EU, many of our problems, would be solved.  ‘We would be sovereign once more!’ – they say.  ‘Look at Norway and Switzerland!’ – they shout.  And who wouldn’t want to benefit from the idyllic quality of life enjoyed by our fjord or mountain dwelling brethren. 

However, the widely known but less oft-repeated fact is that Norway and Switzerland must still abide by the EU’s rulings and regulations to be able to trade with the Single Market, but these two countries have absolutely no say on how those rules are made – arguably a much worse situation than where the UK currently finds itself.

But does this really matter?  The answer is it does – a lot.  It is widely known that the Obama Administration would prefer to have the UK within the EU than without – and without Britain’s connection to the EU, the ‘Special Relationship’ would surely suffer.  The EU is also Britain’s biggest trading partner, representing 52% of all goods and services traded, worth some £400bn a year.  That trade and income is essential for UK jobs and the economy - issues that Director of Strategy at the polling firm Populus, Nick Rye noted on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme are much more important to voters than Europe, a topic which doesn’t even feature in their top 10 concerns.

If the history of political parties have shown us anything, it is that voters are turned off by in-fighting, factionalism and fractions.  Cameron’s attempt to unite and strengthen the party, and kill the issue for the Conservatives once and for all was brave, but only stoked the Eurosceptic fires more.  It seems that unlike previous Tory ructions on the EU, this one is of the PM’s own making and critics would argue is destined to make them just what Cameron was trying to avoid, appearing split and weak. 

At a security conference in Munich in 2011, Prime Minister David Cameron pushed for a stronger British national identity, as he argued that “state multiculturalism” had failed.

However last month, the former Tory Chairman Lord Ashcroft conducted a representative survey of British ethnic minority voters. The survey found that 90% of voters believe the UK has become a more multicultural society and that this is a positive development. A broader national survey found that 70% of all Britons see a multicultural UK as a “good thing”. 71% of Tories support multiculturalism, as do 76% of Labour voters and 89% of Lib Dems.

Interestingly, while Education Secretary Michael Gove has recently come under fire over plans to stop teaching about “the diversity of Britain”, a recent study published in the European Sociological Review found that children who are given anti-racism lessons in school are more likely to be intolerant outside the classroom. The report emphasised that “the impact of positive inter-ethnic contact in class disappears when multiculturalism is taught during lessons”.

The question therefore, is whether the war to defend multiculturalism has already been won. Is it time to move on? Is the teaching of multiculturalism in a multicultural, multiethnic and multiracial society doing more harm than good?

Although events 60 years ago undoubtedly marked a new era of multiculturalism, it is important to remember that as an island that was repeatedly invaded, and consequently speaks a language made up of German, Latin, Saxon, Celtic and French (to name a few), Britain has always been multicultural.

Luckily, in the 21st century identity is not finite and loyalties do not have to compete. So whether we are in the majority that favours a multicultural Britain, or like UKIP, are for a stronger national identity, we should celebrate the very fact that these debates are taking place. Suffice it to say, multiculturalism is not dead but is a living, organic entity affecting us all. 

So with all that has been written about UKIP in the last week, what have we learned?

Possibly the following:

1. It’s difficult to say what a protest vote is: When is a decision to vote for a party based on the fact that you prefer it to the other parties a protest vote, and not just a normal vote? Probably when it is a vote for a party that you don’t like much, made by someone that you think should be voting for you (if you’re a politician). Clear? Perhaps it is a little bit like the jilted disco dancer telling his friends that “she is only dancing with him because he looks like me, and I don’t fancy her anyway etc” - it is a little unconvincing. Nobody should be fooled. Politicians want your votes – all of them. Be they protest, ironic, casual, mistaken or wasted – they want them. A protest vote is most likely to be one they didn’t get, hence the attempt to devalue it.


2. No one is really sure what it all means: Should the Tories hang to the Right? Should Labour adopt a tougher stance on immigration? Should smoking be brought back in pubs?  Is Boris right – is this not a problem for the Conservatives at all? What can be said with near certainty all parties have lost votes to UKIP, 23% of the vote in fact, in areas where a UKIP candidate existed. It’s also pretty fair to say that policies aside (lack thereof not being a problem for UKIP alone), what UKIP is saying is resonating with some voters. UKIP take a no nonsense approach to communicating with the electorate, we know what Farage means when he says it, this is a good thing. Can you imagine Farage extrapolating on the virtues of one nationism, or inviting you to join the Big Society and do you think he would be more or less successful if he did?


3. It might not have much to do with class: A fight back against the out of touch Etonians at Number 10? The natural result of the Labour Party no longer representing the working man? But didn’t Farage go to private school and didn’t his Dad earn lots of money? Does he choose to pronounce his surname like that, á la Hyacinth Bucket? What does that mean? Statistical analysis would help here: YouGov has in the past said that “UKIP voters are older and poorer than Tories but less right-wing”, trying to deconstruct that statement along class lines is difficult, at best. Essentially as YouGov concede, the current pool of intelligence on UKIP voters is slim “the number of UKIP supporters in any single poll is too small to provide reliable data”. We just don’t know – and does it really matter?


4. You can get into trouble when you reach for a friend’s phone whilst imitating a pot plant: Take this chap for example.


5. Hardly anyone can name two members of UKIP: UKIP need to have someone else other than Nigel doing the media rounds. Nigel is a huge asset, but to gain further credibility other voices need to be heard. Alexandra Swann is media friendly and she seems nice and normal, which is a good thing. Of course there is a risk in putting someone ‘new’ out there, especially someone who is at the very start of their political career, the scrutiny will be intense – but that’s politics. Weaning the media off Nigel in the medium term will help UKIP appear that little less eccentric – and more vote worthy. 


6. If you feel that the media has been Farage centric in the last week, just you wait until next year’s European elections. 

The role of the private sector in the provision of healthcare services has always generated strong emotions, on both sides of the debate.  Some claim that independent providers will be more adept at the tendering process, which will greatly impact who wins the tendering process, regardless of actual quality of service. Some are upset that rights granted to private providers would force government to provide compensation if services are subsequently transferred back to the NHS.

Chaired by Ivana Bartoletti, award-winning NHS worker and London Labour candidate for the 2014 European elections, attendees debated the extent to which privatisation is beneficial or harmful. All seemed to agree that it did matter who provided healthcare, but many disagreed as to the ideal balance between public and private sector involvement. Some felt that competition outside of NHS trusts is necessary to trigger innovation, whilst others felt that a for-profit provider could never, in the long-term, provide better value to patients and tax-payers. Everyone was required to question pre-existing opinions about if, how and why privatisation is such a contentious issue.

An exit poll taken at the end of the Health Network debate showed that a majority of attendees rejected the motion at hand.

In the end, the Lords failed in their attempt to overturn Section 75. Outside of the Houses of Parliament, the Fabians, individuals, families and communities across Britain will continue to debate the ideal structure of the NHS.

That is my home! My family is at the Boston Marathon!

Plunged into a blind panic, every device within my reach was used to try and get through to my mum, dad, and brothers via cellphones, house phone, whatsapp, facetime, anything! I finally got a response and found that they were at the half-way point and not near the finish line where the bombs detonated.

Hugely relieved, I continued to watch the story unfold both on the television and on the social media outlets. What became clear was that our ‘24hr news’ was struggling to keep up. Photos and reports of two explosives had been well established on Twitter and there was even talk of a third by the time that the news could confidently report that even one explosive had been set off. The news could not confirm whether or not there had been any injuries, yet the blood-soaked sidewalk of Boylston Street pictured was confirmation enough. Twitter had already found a man pictured on a roof near the bombsite guilty, before anyone else had the chance to consider suspects. The tables seemed to have dramatically turned: social media was not responding to the news, the news was responding to social media.

In something of a shocked trance I flick through the pictures appearing on Twitter, horrifically gruesome shots of victims popped up, highlighting the lack of censorship that comes with social media. With an image dominated forum, there is the possibility that someone might even find out that their loved one is harmed through it – a hugely disturbing thought and a risk when social media reports the news. Our insatiable appetite for fast information is fuelled by the instant access social media offers. However, the unregulated information that comes out on these sites proliferates quickly and the lines between speculation and confirmed news become very blurred, very fast, potentially perpetuating panic.

However, Twitter also served a very practical purpose in the aftermath of the bombs. Cell phone towers were shut down to prevent the detonation of further devices and Twitter became a hub of information with emergency contact numbers, victim search tools, information on where blood could be donated, places where stranded runners could stay etc. Messages of support from across the globe and stories of the heroic first-responders quickly spread over the outlet, uniting shocked Bostonians.

Social media- led news is fast becoming the norm and we will have to adjust and hopefully be able to recognise the risks associated. In the meantime, looking at the acts of bravery, support and compassion appearing on m newsfeed, Twitter has proved that there is far more positivity than negativity in the world, that good will continue to triumph and Boston will not be afraid.

Regardless of political leanings to the left or right, Pierre Trudeau was an extremely important Canadian who shaped the country irrevocably. It was under his leadership that the French language was recognised as official and equal to that of English, aiding to resolve much animosity felt by culturally oppressed French Canadians. Canada’s multicultural policy was made official, which continues to distinguishes the country from the melting pot philosophy of its Southern neighbour, as a nation that recognises a plurality of cultures as a multicultural policy within bilingual framework.

It was also under Pierre Trudeau’s directive that the National Energy Program (NEP) took effect, which created life-long foes of many Western Canadians towards the Liberal Party. The NEP attempted to use oil revenues from Western Canada to ease the cost of oil for Eastern Canada. The NEP was seen as an intrusion by the federal government into provincial jurisdiction and did not work due to falling energy prices.  (It is often forgotten that it was also the Liberal Party under Jean Chretien in the 1990s that helped spearhead exploration of the West’s oil resources with the establishment of the National Oil Sands Task Force, and the implementation of a tax write off for capital expenses for energy projects).

With the hindsight of time and irreparable damage to the national Liberal Party in Western Canada, Justin Trudeau has been able to advocate for the West as a key part of Canada. Something that should and does worry the national Conservative Party and current Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who without any dispute, lacks the charisma, personality, and star power that comes hand-in-hand with the Trudeau name.

Much like the Labour party in the UK, the Liberals in Canada have been dominated by significant leaders whose policies have differed widely and commentators are avidly watching to see how Justin Trudeau will differentiate himself while still joining the fragmented party together. In the last election the Liberal Party suffered a humiliating defeat under Michael Ignatieff. In the eleventh hour, many supporters and disaffected Eastern Canadian Bloc Quebecois voters supported the further left option, the New Democrat Party (NDP). As a result, the NDP gained official Opposition status for the first time in the Party’s history with its own charismatic leader Jack Layton at the helm.

The next federal election is 2015. Whichever party succeeds will need the support of French-speaking Quebec, and arguably inspiring leaders do better. It was the NDP’s determined and tireless Jack Layton who turned the tide for the NDP, sadly passing away soon after the surprise victory from cancer. Now with Justin Trudeau’s victory, many will be watching closely, from close and afar, to see if he will be able to build his own legacy for the Liberal Party.

Already, the campaign lines are being drawn with Justin Trudeau stating in his acceptance speech that Canadians are tired of negative divisive politics, the predictable mainstay of the Conservative Party’s approach under Harper. Stating, “Canadians want to be led not ruled” true indeed, and perhaps more important for Trudeau’s future battling the next election, they will also need to be inspired. An intangible feat to which he already owns a substantial advantage.

To see the speech that formed part of the speculation for Justin Trudeau’s potential as a future Canadian politician, see the eulogy given at his father, Pierre Trudeau’s state funeral in 2000 here.