OPINION by Joe Ahern: The Comment Space's Civil Liberties Expert
As I am writing this, the situation regarding Wikileaks and its director Julian Assange is still unfolding. Assange has been arrested and is due for a hearing at London’s magistrate court at 2.00PM.
These are the facts: on the 28th of November the website Wikileaks began leaking confidential documents that detailed the correspondence between the United States’ diplomats and those of other countries. Some of the information dates back to 1966. The website intends to release all of the cables over a number of months. The Guardian, Der Speigel, The New York Times, El Pais and Le monde are being fed these cables directly.
The Cables have so far revealed, amongst other things, extreme Arab distrust for Iran and even calls by certain Arab leaders for the US to attack Iran, United states diplomats were ordered to spy on figures in the United Nations, including its leader Ban Ki-Moon (and that Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was aware of this) and that diplomats had labelled Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan, both “paranoid” and “extremely weak”.
I have a feeling that this is just the tip of the iceberg. The contents of the encrypted insurance files that Wikileaks has asked supporters to download are likely to contain some damaging revelations, as are the cables that are yet to be released.
The response from the international community has been overwhelming. All countries involved, which by the way is almost all countries, have condemned the actions of wikileaks. Some Political figures in Canada and the USA have called for Mr Assange to be assassinated. Sarah Palin has called him a terrorist and an anti-American. He has now been detained in the UK, it must be said, purportedly not in relation to the leaks, but on charges of sex crimes. Amazon.com, PayPal and Mastercard have denied Wikileaks their services.
We are told to join in this outrage. Wikileaks may have caused deaths we are told, diplomatic relations are in jeopardy, America’s national security is at stake, as is any prospect of peace in the middle east. In essence, the privilege that we afford to our leaders to be able to have secrets, when in our interests, has been compromised. I agree that there ought to be official secrets and times where things are kept from us by the state in order to defend national security. However, we must assess these leaks and their responses in the context of the world we live in.
It is clear both from these cables and previous events that many western states, particularly the USA have been operating outside the rule of law. As an example of this in these cables, I cite the use of diplomats as spies against the general secretary of the UN. We know that America, not too far in the past, has used extra judicial torture against suspects of terrorism, engaged in mass spying and bugging against its population domestically and committed war crimes in the Middle East and elsewhere. I could elaborate on these points, but I could easily write thousands of words detailing the ways America has become a rogue state in both foreign and domestic affairs. In the interest of fairness I will state that this country is not to be exempt from charges of operating outside of the law. As well as assisting America in the pursuit of an aggressive and illegal foreign policy, our government seriously eroded civil liberties through an array of supposed anti terrorism legislation.
Wikileaks is doing its best to expose activities like these. It has already done so through publishing the Afghan war diary and Iraqi war logs, and is continuing to do so with these cables. It is providing a vital service: transparency. We cannot trust the state to share it’s dirty secrets with us and our media is often too servile to scrutinise our government effectively. This blogger says that until the state is brought back under the rule of law, until the lying and cronyism that defines contemporary international relations has collapsed, until our leaders our accountable for their half-baked adventures in foreign lands and until we cease to see western society slipping towards authoritarianism: Let a thousand wikileaks bloom!
Sunday, 12 December 2010
Wednesday, 1 December 2010
Ireland, the EU, and Britain, an Interdependent Economic Mess.
ANALYSIS by Patrick English: The Comment Space's Europe Specialist
During the considerations by the Irish government on the proposed bailout from the EU, George Osbourne, the UK Chancellor, announced that the UK was prepared to loan the Irish government money directly or indirectly through the EU to stabilise its failing banking and housing sectors. This provoked much controversy from commentators and the public at large, who were unsure as to why in a time of austerity, the UK should be loaning away vast sums of money to other countries. The answer in two words? Economic Interdependence. The answer in several hundred words? Well, prepare for some heavy economic stuff.
The Irish economy only properly developed into a fully functioning economy in the 1970's when the country ceased becoming a third world nation; hard to believe I know, but a European neighbour of ours was indeed living in poverty up until just four decades ago. Due to its sudden emergence as a viable economic force, inward investment into the Irish economy was seen as the smart move by banks, states, and businesses alike, the logic was that 'things could only go up' from just bordering poverty, the returns would be colossal.
Indeed they were right, Ireland developed what was known as a 'Tiger Economy' in which grew at an incredible pace, partly exasperated by joining the EU in 1973 and the subsequent investment that brought. The banking, construction, and housing sectors boomed in enormous proportions after the 'Free Movement of Workers' agreement passed in the EU, and foreign labour and business, predominantly Eastern European, flooded into the country. The government set corporations taxes at record low levels, around 14%, and low interest rates to accommodate the bank's desire to loan to the construction and housing industries at record levels. Such a rapidly grown and narrow economy was bound to come down with a crash at the sight of trouble. Indeed, when the recession came around, foreign investment into Ireland effectively ceased, and the imported business and labour already in Ireland near enough left the country for their homelands in a mass exodus between 2006 and 2009. With business failing and banks no longer seeing returns on their risky expansions into the housing and construction industries, the Irish economy practically fell apart.
Why then, might you ask, are states now so desperate to get involved from meltdown across the Eurozone and here in Britain and save the Irish economy? As previously pointed out, states, not only businesses, invested heavily into the Irish economy while it was growing in the 80s and 90s, and Britain in particular lent money to the Irish government for social welfare and trade expansion programmes and invested a lot of her own money into strengthening and improving the trading ties between herself and Ireland. The result of that has a massive legacy today; Ireland is currently, by far, our biggest export nation. If the Irish were to collapse as a state, Britain would lose a colossal chunk of its export trade and our economy would suffer greatly as a result. Indirectly also the British economy would take a hit from the drag on the Euro that an Irish collapse would present. Considering that Ireland utilizes the single currency of the EU, just like any other state its economic condition and policies greatly affect the strength and viability of the currency across all Eurozone states, which in turn then dictates itself the health of the economies which utilise it. The EU needs Ireland to be in good trading shape to protect the Euro.
Think of it this way, You own a farm and are producing food for yourself to eat and then the surplus food is taken to trade for other foods from other farmers, vital for a balanced diet, in market with. If your food was then found to be substandard as the ground you farmed it on contained impurities, and it started causing ill-health amongst those who purchased it; then not only would people stop trading their food for your food, thus detriment your health due to lack of variety, but your own food would also itself cause yourself and your own family to fall into ill-health. This then detriment your ability to go and produce better food and become able to trade with the other farmers again.
This analogy is easily transferred to economics; think of the family as your state, food as the currency, and the health to be the condition of the economy or economic capacity: If your currency is seen to be built on weak grounds or debt, then other states will be highly reluctant to trade in the state's currency and businesses will not wish to store capital in it. This then means that the state will cease seeing inward investment and capital flow into it. Combined with the weakness of the currency, this then in turn would weaken the state in economic capacity, and the ability to combat the found flaws in the economy, thus further weakening the currency. It is something of a vicious circle; the more a currency fails, the more the economy fails, unless a mass devaluation, which isn't viable such is the complexity and size of the EU as an economy, takes place.
Thus, it is quite evident that it is in the interest of the Eurozone and Britain, such is the level of economic interdependency between the two and Ireland, to offer assistance to Ireland and prevent its collapse. If the two chose not to help, there would be dire consequences. The EU would see the Euro take a huge hit from one of its utilizers collapsing, this in turn would most likely cause Portugal, Spain, and Belgium (all in similarly precarious situations) to collapse, further damaging the Euro and its economies. Germany, the heart of the EU and Eurozone, would also see massive losses in the collapse of Ireland, as much of its banking sector has large investments placed in Ireland's banks. Britain's trading would suffer then greatly, with her biggest export nation in Ireland and also the EU, responsible for 50% of our total trade, limiting or perhaps ceasing trade effectively altogether, the economy would be at risk of once again sliding into recession.
The argument pretty much speaks for itself, there is no way we can feasibly afford to let Ireland collapse; such are the levels of investment from Britain and the EU in its economy, and the reliance on its trading capabilities from both parties. It's an unavoidable situation given the current circumstances, but are there possibilities that, in future, we could build an economic system where wouldn't have to worry about exterior economic factors detriment our own economy? The answer if of course, yes, but the follow up question; "Why don't we adopt such an economic structure?", is something a little more complicated. It is possible and probably sensible for the coalition government to stay away from the previous government's highly interdependence favourable lending and borrowing attitude, and adopt a more conservative approach with British investments and borrowing, but a fully independent Britian, or any other state, for that matter, is something which is quite impractical.
The reasoning for perhaps why, although possible, it may not be such a good idea to operate a form of isolationist economic policy can be demonstrated by examples of those who tried to do just that. The best would probably be the USA in the 1920's, the Republican party under Harding, Coolidge, then Hoover operated highly isolationist economic policies which effectively saw inward and outward investment cease, and America running a self sufficient economy. For ten or so years, as we all know, the plan worked and the USA experienced an urban boom. However the country began overproducing goods and was then unable to sell them to the global market, such were the trade boundaries put in place by both sides of the Atlantic as part of the isolationist policies. This factor contributed greatly, most importantly I would argue on a personal basis, to the collapse of the American economy which triggered the Great Depression. In communist China, until Deng Xiouping brought in the "Socialist Market Economy (Capitalism within Communism)" in the 1980's and allowed capitalism to operate in some selected coastal cities, China was a poverty stricken nation trying to live within its own means. North Korea today operates a similar approach to economics, and recent footage displays (allegedly) just how much poverty and unhappiness Kim Jung Il is forcing his people to live under.
In order to operate a successful fully isolated economy in which there is no reliance on international trade or investment, a state must be able to live entirely within its own means and be completely self sufficient. In other words, to be out of the global system of intensely entwined economies, food and resource trading, and financial sectors, you have to replicate that entire system within your own state. No state, certainly not Britain, has the natural resources, infrastructure, or workforce to be able to pull that off. The fact is we need Ireland and the EU to trade with us, just the same as we need China to contiune producing cheap goods for our consumer economy. In other words, you are part of the system, until you can become the system.
******
In Europe this week:
Wikileaks have released cables claiming that a Senior Spanish prosecutor has told the US hierarchy that Russia, Belarus, and Chechnya have virtually become what he describes as 'Mafia States'. In a move set to embarress both Spain and the US, and throw the spotlight on the 3 accused countries, the official asserted that he could not tell much difference between the dealings of these 3 countries, and those of Organised Criminals. More here.
The agreed, in principle, Irish bailout from the EU has sparked a rise in global markets; the Pound and Euro both advanced in the currency markets, and financial markets particularly rose in Asia in response to investments in Ireland being made apparently safe by the bailout funds. More info here.
No longer shall foreign, well EU anyway, drivers be able to commit minor offenses on our roads and get away 'scott free'. Major offenses are obviously followed up and prosecuted in Britain, but until now Police time and lack of appropriate legislation has limitted the ability for our traffic law to be enforced on drivers from the EU on our roads. This shall no longer be the case, with the EU asserting that soon, under EU law, prosecutions shall be easy and uncostly. The legislation will not set punishments thus not compromising soverignty, but will set a time scale of 2 years during which the legislation may be put into place in the statute books of each member state. More from the BBC here.
During the considerations by the Irish government on the proposed bailout from the EU, George Osbourne, the UK Chancellor, announced that the UK was prepared to loan the Irish government money directly or indirectly through the EU to stabilise its failing banking and housing sectors. This provoked much controversy from commentators and the public at large, who were unsure as to why in a time of austerity, the UK should be loaning away vast sums of money to other countries. The answer in two words? Economic Interdependence. The answer in several hundred words? Well, prepare for some heavy economic stuff.
The Irish economy only properly developed into a fully functioning economy in the 1970's when the country ceased becoming a third world nation; hard to believe I know, but a European neighbour of ours was indeed living in poverty up until just four decades ago. Due to its sudden emergence as a viable economic force, inward investment into the Irish economy was seen as the smart move by banks, states, and businesses alike, the logic was that 'things could only go up' from just bordering poverty, the returns would be colossal.
Indeed they were right, Ireland developed what was known as a 'Tiger Economy' in which grew at an incredible pace, partly exasperated by joining the EU in 1973 and the subsequent investment that brought. The banking, construction, and housing sectors boomed in enormous proportions after the 'Free Movement of Workers' agreement passed in the EU, and foreign labour and business, predominantly Eastern European, flooded into the country. The government set corporations taxes at record low levels, around 14%, and low interest rates to accommodate the bank's desire to loan to the construction and housing industries at record levels. Such a rapidly grown and narrow economy was bound to come down with a crash at the sight of trouble. Indeed, when the recession came around, foreign investment into Ireland effectively ceased, and the imported business and labour already in Ireland near enough left the country for their homelands in a mass exodus between 2006 and 2009. With business failing and banks no longer seeing returns on their risky expansions into the housing and construction industries, the Irish economy practically fell apart.
Why then, might you ask, are states now so desperate to get involved from meltdown across the Eurozone and here in Britain and save the Irish economy? As previously pointed out, states, not only businesses, invested heavily into the Irish economy while it was growing in the 80s and 90s, and Britain in particular lent money to the Irish government for social welfare and trade expansion programmes and invested a lot of her own money into strengthening and improving the trading ties between herself and Ireland. The result of that has a massive legacy today; Ireland is currently, by far, our biggest export nation. If the Irish were to collapse as a state, Britain would lose a colossal chunk of its export trade and our economy would suffer greatly as a result. Indirectly also the British economy would take a hit from the drag on the Euro that an Irish collapse would present. Considering that Ireland utilizes the single currency of the EU, just like any other state its economic condition and policies greatly affect the strength and viability of the currency across all Eurozone states, which in turn then dictates itself the health of the economies which utilise it. The EU needs Ireland to be in good trading shape to protect the Euro.
Think of it this way, You own a farm and are producing food for yourself to eat and then the surplus food is taken to trade for other foods from other farmers, vital for a balanced diet, in market with. If your food was then found to be substandard as the ground you farmed it on contained impurities, and it started causing ill-health amongst those who purchased it; then not only would people stop trading their food for your food, thus detriment your health due to lack of variety, but your own food would also itself cause yourself and your own family to fall into ill-health. This then detriment your ability to go and produce better food and become able to trade with the other farmers again.
This analogy is easily transferred to economics; think of the family as your state, food as the currency, and the health to be the condition of the economy or economic capacity: If your currency is seen to be built on weak grounds or debt, then other states will be highly reluctant to trade in the state's currency and businesses will not wish to store capital in it. This then means that the state will cease seeing inward investment and capital flow into it. Combined with the weakness of the currency, this then in turn would weaken the state in economic capacity, and the ability to combat the found flaws in the economy, thus further weakening the currency. It is something of a vicious circle; the more a currency fails, the more the economy fails, unless a mass devaluation, which isn't viable such is the complexity and size of the EU as an economy, takes place.
Thus, it is quite evident that it is in the interest of the Eurozone and Britain, such is the level of economic interdependency between the two and Ireland, to offer assistance to Ireland and prevent its collapse. If the two chose not to help, there would be dire consequences. The EU would see the Euro take a huge hit from one of its utilizers collapsing, this in turn would most likely cause Portugal, Spain, and Belgium (all in similarly precarious situations) to collapse, further damaging the Euro and its economies. Germany, the heart of the EU and Eurozone, would also see massive losses in the collapse of Ireland, as much of its banking sector has large investments placed in Ireland's banks. Britain's trading would suffer then greatly, with her biggest export nation in Ireland and also the EU, responsible for 50% of our total trade, limiting or perhaps ceasing trade effectively altogether, the economy would be at risk of once again sliding into recession.
The argument pretty much speaks for itself, there is no way we can feasibly afford to let Ireland collapse; such are the levels of investment from Britain and the EU in its economy, and the reliance on its trading capabilities from both parties. It's an unavoidable situation given the current circumstances, but are there possibilities that, in future, we could build an economic system where wouldn't have to worry about exterior economic factors detriment our own economy? The answer if of course, yes, but the follow up question; "Why don't we adopt such an economic structure?", is something a little more complicated. It is possible and probably sensible for the coalition government to stay away from the previous government's highly interdependence favourable lending and borrowing attitude, and adopt a more conservative approach with British investments and borrowing, but a fully independent Britian, or any other state, for that matter, is something which is quite impractical.
The reasoning for perhaps why, although possible, it may not be such a good idea to operate a form of isolationist economic policy can be demonstrated by examples of those who tried to do just that. The best would probably be the USA in the 1920's, the Republican party under Harding, Coolidge, then Hoover operated highly isolationist economic policies which effectively saw inward and outward investment cease, and America running a self sufficient economy. For ten or so years, as we all know, the plan worked and the USA experienced an urban boom. However the country began overproducing goods and was then unable to sell them to the global market, such were the trade boundaries put in place by both sides of the Atlantic as part of the isolationist policies. This factor contributed greatly, most importantly I would argue on a personal basis, to the collapse of the American economy which triggered the Great Depression. In communist China, until Deng Xiouping brought in the "Socialist Market Economy (Capitalism within Communism)" in the 1980's and allowed capitalism to operate in some selected coastal cities, China was a poverty stricken nation trying to live within its own means. North Korea today operates a similar approach to economics, and recent footage displays (allegedly) just how much poverty and unhappiness Kim Jung Il is forcing his people to live under.
In order to operate a successful fully isolated economy in which there is no reliance on international trade or investment, a state must be able to live entirely within its own means and be completely self sufficient. In other words, to be out of the global system of intensely entwined economies, food and resource trading, and financial sectors, you have to replicate that entire system within your own state. No state, certainly not Britain, has the natural resources, infrastructure, or workforce to be able to pull that off. The fact is we need Ireland and the EU to trade with us, just the same as we need China to contiune producing cheap goods for our consumer economy. In other words, you are part of the system, until you can become the system.
******
In Europe this week:
Wikileaks have released cables claiming that a Senior Spanish prosecutor has told the US hierarchy that Russia, Belarus, and Chechnya have virtually become what he describes as 'Mafia States'. In a move set to embarress both Spain and the US, and throw the spotlight on the 3 accused countries, the official asserted that he could not tell much difference between the dealings of these 3 countries, and those of Organised Criminals. More here.
The agreed, in principle, Irish bailout from the EU has sparked a rise in global markets; the Pound and Euro both advanced in the currency markets, and financial markets particularly rose in Asia in response to investments in Ireland being made apparently safe by the bailout funds. More info here.
No longer shall foreign, well EU anyway, drivers be able to commit minor offenses on our roads and get away 'scott free'. Major offenses are obviously followed up and prosecuted in Britain, but until now Police time and lack of appropriate legislation has limitted the ability for our traffic law to be enforced on drivers from the EU on our roads. This shall no longer be the case, with the EU asserting that soon, under EU law, prosecutions shall be easy and uncostly. The legislation will not set punishments thus not compromising soverignty, but will set a time scale of 2 years during which the legislation may be put into place in the statute books of each member state. More from the BBC here.
Friday, 26 November 2010
North Korean Aggression Causes International Outrage, But why now?
ANALYSIS by Sam Neagus: The Comment Space's International Relations specialist
The most secretive state in the world has launched a shelling attack on the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong. US President Barack Obama has been ‘outraged’ by the actions of North Korea, and even The Kremlin has issued a clear statement of condemnation.
The South Korean military had been carrying out a routine exercise when they were fired at with a number of shells which landed on the island, killing two soldiers and wounding both military personnel and civilians. Needless to say, the South returned fire, yet casualties in the North are unknown.
 |
| Kim Jong-Il: believed to be in poor health |
The crisis is feared to escalate so quickly that the US State Department quickly issued a statement in full support of their allies in South Korea, sending out a message that they would be willing to use force and the 28,000 US armed forces personnel based in South Korea would be deployed should it be deemed necessary.
United Nations Security General, Ki-moon is said to be “deeply concerned by the escalation of tension” and has even called it the worst incident on the Korean peninsula since the war between the two Koreas.
The two Korea’s are hardly known to get on well, yet tensions have not escalated into a crisis for a while now. Yet, deeper analysis would certainly suggest that the timing is certainly not unsurprising: it has been widely speculated that the Dictator Kim-Jong-Il is in poor health (often thought to be a result of heavy drinking) and he is in the process of handing over power to his son, Kim-Jong-un. The incident would have undoubtedly given him an insight into the international sphere of politics, even if North Korea has an extremely isolationist outlook.
One could even speculate that the North Korean military took such action as a way to show discontent with the passing down of power. One member of the US delegation aimed at resolving the North Korean nuclear crisis believes that the armed services are even hostile to the succession from Kim Jong-Il to his son.
Another convincing argument for such aggression is linked to worries about aid. The South Korean government has reduced aid to their Northern neighbours to very insignificant levels, and seeing as the North has been hit with natural disasters affecting the harvest, combined with UN and US economic sanctions, which has left its economic system close to collapse.
The BBC have suggested that the attack is to refocus attention from the international community back onto the dictatorial regime, as their economy is in desperate need of aid, and they want nuclear talks to resume. Needless to say, this does not appear to be a rational decision should they desire such sympathy.
It seems however, that it is ultimately South Korea who must decide how to act. The President may choose to follow a diplomatic route, attempting to gain sympathy from the United Nations as well as allies in the West.
However, I’m sceptical about the chance of them actually doing, especially since the sinking of the South Korean battleship in March was not resolved successfully in a peaceful manner. It seems fair to say, in my opinion, that they President Lee Myung-bak will place conditions on the continuing trade between the two nations, likely to be that the North must follow nuclear disarmament- such a sanction will cause outrage by Kim Jong-Il and could see yet further tension in the area, or even a second Korean war.
If North Korea are in the midst of handing over power from the leader to his son, it is unlikely that they will be cooperative, and if anything will want to show military strength and prowess.
It is certainly a tense state of affairs, and the next weeks will be crucial in determining the course of Far Eastern relations for the years to come.
***
In Washington this week…
As the 2010 Mid Term election cycle has recently come to an end, political commentators have already begun to look forward to the Presidential elections in two years time. Fox News has speculated that Obama may face a contested Primary Election season, which means that there is every chance he becomes only the third President to fail a re-election bid. Blue Dog Democrat (the right-wing faction of the Democratic Party) Russell Feingold lost his Senate seat earlier this month, but mysteriously said “its onto the next battle, in 2012” after his defeat. Feingold has an intricate knowledge of the economy, and one would expect him to play on this in the primary season, should he stand. Whilst all speculation at the moment, Barack Obama cannot be looking forward to the prospect of a long fought and bloody primary battle, which could yet further damage his reputation.
In an incredible statement today, Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri has said that she wanted to eliminate earmarks (additions to legislation, which are often costly and provide little benefit to the country as a whole- usually specify what state/area is involved) from the Bill currently being debated on Capitol Hill, regarding farming subsidies. Not only would her state benefit, it has traditionally been the Republican Party who oppose such earmarks. Perhaps a sign that she has seen US Politics as a whole leap to the right, jumping on the conservative and TEA Party bandwagon?
Democrat Congressman, Bill Owens (New York state) has admitted that he is not sure who he will vote for to be the new House of Representatives Speaker when the 112th Congress starts on January 3rd after the mid-term elections which saw the GOP gain 62 seats. He seems keen on the idea of Republican candidate, John Boehner taking over from Democrat Nancy Pelosi. Should he defect from his party, he will be the first Congressman to do so since 2001 when James Traficant (Democrat) voted for Denis Hastert.
The Judicial branch of the US Federal Government: The Supreme Court was at the centre of a controversy last week after two justices clashed and exchanged strong words when debating whether capital punishment was unconstitutional and should therefore be outlawed. Antonin Scalia, 74 is currently the longest serving Justice, having been appointed by Ronald Reagan is considered to be the most right-wing Judge shot down Stephen Breyer (a more liberal leaning Justice), arguing passionately that the death sentence “definitely does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment” (which is one of the terms in the Constitution). This public disagreement further emphasises how political the Court has become, even if it is supposed to be ‘above Politics’.
(Picture with courtesy of Chattahbox.com)
Thursday, 25 November 2010
From Inside the Sheffield University Occupation - Siobhan Bligh Reports
UPDATE by Siobhan Bligh
On the 24th of November, the Education Activists Network organised an event that brought 120,000 people onto the street of their cities in Britain, in opposition to the rise of tuition fees and the cuts as a whole. In Sheffield, we staged an occupation in a lecture theatre, the demands can be found here; http://sheffieldoccupation.tumblr.com/
The day had started with 2000 students and college kids protesting outside the Town Hall, the protest was driven by anger towards the loss of EMA. The education maintenance allowance gave teenagers in poorer families to gain £30 per week if they went to college or 6th form. The mood was ecstatic, the teenagers chanting and venting their anger. The entire scene highlighted the belief that there is a new form of political dialogue that is hitting the streets of Britain. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the “massive uk debt” cannot be used to mandate such a huge cut in services. Children and their parents, workers and their bosses are discussing the role of politicians, education and welfare systems on a daily basis. Although I may not like the answers some people present in response to debates around welfare and the role of the state, the level of discussion makes this a truly exciting political period.
After the protest, students amass in the Hicks Building to start the occupation, hours of debates and votes later, the demands are finalised and released to the press. The adrenaline of the day results in a great vibe, the strength of opposition and updates of student action from around the UK keeps everyone in good cheer. Everyone has a smile on their face, from the anarcho-communist in the corner to the ex-lib dem passing from lack of sleep on a lecture table. The police are present, but never officially intervene with the peaceful protest. The night passes by with snow gently drifting outside the hicks windows, as the television updates us with student solidarity from around the country. Around 40 universities staged a sit in last night, some are still active. The BBC focuses on the London riots, and the kettling of protesters by police, but the day seems to be filled by coverage of people on the streets supporting the students. Change is happening in Britain, the resilience to fight against injustice is returning to the student masses.
A ITV journalist interviewed me, and asked whether the occupation was going to disrupt education in the university. The occupation was not a threat to higher education, the con-dem cuts in higher education most certainly is, with 100% cuts in arts, humanities and and 40% in sciences effective immediately. What have doctors, politicians, historians, writers, chemists and artists ever done for us anyway?
On the 24th of November, the Education Activists Network organised an event that brought 120,000 people onto the street of their cities in Britain, in opposition to the rise of tuition fees and the cuts as a whole. In Sheffield, we staged an occupation in a lecture theatre, the demands can be found here; http://sheffieldoccupation.tumblr.com/
The day had started with 2000 students and college kids protesting outside the Town Hall, the protest was driven by anger towards the loss of EMA. The education maintenance allowance gave teenagers in poorer families to gain £30 per week if they went to college or 6th form. The mood was ecstatic, the teenagers chanting and venting their anger. The entire scene highlighted the belief that there is a new form of political dialogue that is hitting the streets of Britain. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the “massive uk debt” cannot be used to mandate such a huge cut in services. Children and their parents, workers and their bosses are discussing the role of politicians, education and welfare systems on a daily basis. Although I may not like the answers some people present in response to debates around welfare and the role of the state, the level of discussion makes this a truly exciting political period.
After the protest, students amass in the Hicks Building to start the occupation, hours of debates and votes later, the demands are finalised and released to the press. The adrenaline of the day results in a great vibe, the strength of opposition and updates of student action from around the UK keeps everyone in good cheer. Everyone has a smile on their face, from the anarcho-communist in the corner to the ex-lib dem passing from lack of sleep on a lecture table. The police are present, but never officially intervene with the peaceful protest. The night passes by with snow gently drifting outside the hicks windows, as the television updates us with student solidarity from around the country. Around 40 universities staged a sit in last night, some are still active. The BBC focuses on the London riots, and the kettling of protesters by police, but the day seems to be filled by coverage of people on the streets supporting the students. Change is happening in Britain, the resilience to fight against injustice is returning to the student masses.
A ITV journalist interviewed me, and asked whether the occupation was going to disrupt education in the university. The occupation was not a threat to higher education, the con-dem cuts in higher education most certainly is, with 100% cuts in arts, humanities and and 40% in sciences effective immediately. What have doctors, politicians, historians, writers, chemists and artists ever done for us anyway?
Monday, 22 November 2010
Really, Should We Have A Monarchy?
OPINION By Ben Mackay
In a time of much politician-hating it cannot be said that any one party or person holds the allegiance of most or even a lot of the country. It is difficult for those who do not care for a Prime Minister Cameron to smile happily as he opens their hospital, or visits their military base. If a politician was the head of state this would only breed disunity and a discomfort with who represents our country. The Queen and the Monarchy has a majority support in the population. In a 2007 poll as many as 78% of the population support them (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7162649.stm). This is an incredible level of popularity and shows a rare satisfaction with a national institution. If we want to get rid of something so popular we really need to have good reasons.
A republican may point out that the head of state need not be a politician but could be elected by the people. Anyone could stand and it would be a purely symbolic role bereft of political responsibility. Thus we might get a King Stephen Fry or a Queen Helen Mirren; the possibilities are endless and wondrous. However one of the benefits of the monarchy is that the Queen is a sign of stability. If we had regular elections then we would lose this long-term connection with our symbolic representative. The monarchy brings a continuity between past and present – as governments rise and fall it will always be there either in the form of one person or in the form of a family. Also, elections for a head of state could become a popularity contest which sucks away the dignity of the office – would we really be happy with Queen Katie Price or King Wagner? Furthermore if the Queen is already popular and people want her as head of the state then what need is there to have elections.
Does having a monarchy harm us in anyway? If the monarchy was demonstrably causing problems for us as a country; maybe if it was a too obvious example of class distinctions and this was preventing a meritocratic society functioning. The class system needs to be broken up and it would be great to see higher inheritance and land taxes for unearned wealth, however nobody is seriously arguing for a total removal of the heritage that aristocratic families have built up in property and status. We can try to ameliorate this inequality, but we cannot destroy it. The Queen should pay more in taxes and should increase opening of her palaces however I don’t see why this cannot be done with the monarchy still existing. The family can become normalised but still take on public roles if they wish.
We should be happy with the monarchy, because it is an actively politically neutral institution which we can rally around, most people are happy with it and it is a stable sign of continuity with our past. It provides stable flows of finance to numerous charities such as the Prince's Trust, and in our society, even if a Presidency were to be established by republican movements, then there would be great room for the Monarchy to continue as a social establishment.
They are often a hapless bunch, but broadly the people of the United Kingdom support them. The British Monarchy is an institution that has existed for most of this country’s history and yet a minority argue that it is an anachronism, clashing with modernity’s desire for an end to class. Although there are issues to be addressed such as how much money goes to the Royal Family or whether Charles has been interfering in the construction of a building, the monarchy is largely an impartial and politically neutral entity which can unite the people.
In a time of much politician-hating it cannot be said that any one party or person holds the allegiance of most or even a lot of the country. It is difficult for those who do not care for a Prime Minister Cameron to smile happily as he opens their hospital, or visits their military base. If a politician was the head of state this would only breed disunity and a discomfort with who represents our country. The Queen and the Monarchy has a majority support in the population. In a 2007 poll as many as 78% of the population support them (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7162649.stm). This is an incredible level of popularity and shows a rare satisfaction with a national institution. If we want to get rid of something so popular we really need to have good reasons.
A republican may point out that the head of state need not be a politician but could be elected by the people. Anyone could stand and it would be a purely symbolic role bereft of political responsibility. Thus we might get a King Stephen Fry or a Queen Helen Mirren; the possibilities are endless and wondrous. However one of the benefits of the monarchy is that the Queen is a sign of stability. If we had regular elections then we would lose this long-term connection with our symbolic representative. The monarchy brings a continuity between past and present – as governments rise and fall it will always be there either in the form of one person or in the form of a family. Also, elections for a head of state could become a popularity contest which sucks away the dignity of the office – would we really be happy with Queen Katie Price or King Wagner? Furthermore if the Queen is already popular and people want her as head of the state then what need is there to have elections.
Does having a monarchy harm us in anyway? If the monarchy was demonstrably causing problems for us as a country; maybe if it was a too obvious example of class distinctions and this was preventing a meritocratic society functioning. The class system needs to be broken up and it would be great to see higher inheritance and land taxes for unearned wealth, however nobody is seriously arguing for a total removal of the heritage that aristocratic families have built up in property and status. We can try to ameliorate this inequality, but we cannot destroy it. The Queen should pay more in taxes and should increase opening of her palaces however I don’t see why this cannot be done with the monarchy still existing. The family can become normalised but still take on public roles if they wish.
We should be happy with the monarchy, because it is an actively politically neutral institution which we can rally around, most people are happy with it and it is a stable sign of continuity with our past. It provides stable flows of finance to numerous charities such as the Prince's Trust, and in our society, even if a Presidency were to be established by republican movements, then there would be great room for the Monarchy to continue as a social establishment.
Wednesday, 17 November 2010
Austerity Or Charity? A Tough Decision For Ireland Which Could Impact Us All.
ANALYSIS by Patrick English
The problems that the UK faces with debt and budget deficits are quite meager compared to those faced by Ireland and currently worrying economists across the EU. The Irish government has an underlying structural deficit (fundamental imbalance between government tax and spend sheets) of 12% GDP which is discouraging inward investment and destabilising the financial sector to an almost complete standstill, as well as the nearly collapsing the housing market. Unemployment is high, and the budget deficit (the precise amount of what a government is overspent by and therefore in debt by) currently stands at around 32% of GDP, for this year alone. A very good quality lay-out of exactly what Ireland faces financially and how that came to being can be found here on the BBC.
Yesterday Olli Rehn, the European Union monetary affairs commissioner, announced that he had held talks in Dublin over two days as was satisfied that the Irish government and parliament were doing all they could to meet the fiscal targets set out by the EU, and that they subsequently had high chances of meeting them. However, he also stated, as all aware of the situation know, that the Irish economy was still in a very fragile state, and that the EU had to make stabilising the economy their top priority, the key aspects of his address to the press can be seen here.
The EU has now opened the door to the Irish government for a form of 'bailout' handout, should they request it; lessons have evidently been learnt from the Laissez Faire approach taken toward the Greek economy when it was in a similar situation. The financial package looks appealing to those in Ireland struggling to make ends meet and business happen, but the government and parliament seem to be unfavorable towards the idea. Why? Because in order to take from the EU, you have to give a lot back, and that's something the Irish people aren't easy with.
As with any financial loan deal there are snags to the loanee, and the proposed EU bailout is no exception. As part of any EU bailout deal, the EU high commission will request in depth inclusion into the running of the Irish economy, and the usage of the bailout funds. This would be seen as quite a natural clause, the bailout would come directly from EU funds, and therefore from EU member states including the UK. If such a bailout were to go ahead, then the participating countries would want to ensure that the money was being spent in the right places, and that the neccessary steps were being made for full repayment and eliminating the possibility of a repeat bailout being needed. This would very much infringe on the Irish government and people's sovereignty over there nation state. This form of 'fear of losing control' over Irish affairs is really the driving force behind the anti-bailout feeling throughout Ireland.
The Irish Enterprise Minister Batt O'Keeffe recently told journalists "It has been a very hard-won sovereignty for this country and the government is not going to give over that sovereignty to anyone." Those on the street proud of their Irish heritage and in full memory of the campaign for Irish independence also support an Ireland that will not turn humiliated to the EU cap in hand, but instead can resolve its financial crisis by its own ways and means.
Thus, Ireland proposes a different manner than borrowing to get its economy back on track; much like the Coalition government here in the UK, the Irish government will shortly be announcing an austerity drive to combat the colossal debt problems plaguing the economy. The figures that are being announced round the ball park are quite staggering, with plans culminating to bring the structural deficit down to around 9% GDP by 2011. The fear is that although this may encourage inward investment once more into the Irish economy, the real economy (small businesses and local employment infrastructures) will suffer greatly from the loss of disposable income and government funding for grassroots business, sending demand plummeting, unemployment rising, benefit costs soaring, and thus the Irish economy back into recession.
By taking either proposed route to promised economic safety, the Irish government and subsequently citizens will be facing tough consequences for their bankers' actions; do the government save sovereignty and debt and try to save the Irish economy through an austerity drive which runs the real risk of tipping the economy back into recession, or do they accept the bailout from the EU to kick start the economy at the cost of dignity and influence? As a proud and dignified people, the Irish would seem to be moving towards the former like many EU and worldwide capitalist economies. The real question is, can their real, grassroots economy take the strain as well as its richer MEDC counterparts? Economies such as the USA and the UK have previously recovered from financial unstabilities through measures of austerity after artificial (government fiscle stimulus created) growth has restarted econimic growth. However, economics is highly contextual and relies on 'confidence' of the public and inevstors alike; if any country emabarks on a voyage of high levels of cuts and taxing, then they run the risk of stunting growth and stagnating the economy; to none so more is this relevant than to economies, like Ireland's, that havent started growing at a consistant pace once more. If this turns out to be the case for Ireland, it will be a bigger bailout, bigger humiliation, and bigger loss of sovereignty over to Brussels.
The problems that the UK faces with debt and budget deficits are quite meager compared to those faced by Ireland and currently worrying economists across the EU. The Irish government has an underlying structural deficit (fundamental imbalance between government tax and spend sheets) of 12% GDP which is discouraging inward investment and destabilising the financial sector to an almost complete standstill, as well as the nearly collapsing the housing market. Unemployment is high, and the budget deficit (the precise amount of what a government is overspent by and therefore in debt by) currently stands at around 32% of GDP, for this year alone. A very good quality lay-out of exactly what Ireland faces financially and how that came to being can be found here on the BBC.
Yesterday Olli Rehn, the European Union monetary affairs commissioner, announced that he had held talks in Dublin over two days as was satisfied that the Irish government and parliament were doing all they could to meet the fiscal targets set out by the EU, and that they subsequently had high chances of meeting them. However, he also stated, as all aware of the situation know, that the Irish economy was still in a very fragile state, and that the EU had to make stabilising the economy their top priority, the key aspects of his address to the press can be seen here.
The EU has now opened the door to the Irish government for a form of 'bailout' handout, should they request it; lessons have evidently been learnt from the Laissez Faire approach taken toward the Greek economy when it was in a similar situation. The financial package looks appealing to those in Ireland struggling to make ends meet and business happen, but the government and parliament seem to be unfavorable towards the idea. Why? Because in order to take from the EU, you have to give a lot back, and that's something the Irish people aren't easy with.
As with any financial loan deal there are snags to the loanee, and the proposed EU bailout is no exception. As part of any EU bailout deal, the EU high commission will request in depth inclusion into the running of the Irish economy, and the usage of the bailout funds. This would be seen as quite a natural clause, the bailout would come directly from EU funds, and therefore from EU member states including the UK. If such a bailout were to go ahead, then the participating countries would want to ensure that the money was being spent in the right places, and that the neccessary steps were being made for full repayment and eliminating the possibility of a repeat bailout being needed. This would very much infringe on the Irish government and people's sovereignty over there nation state. This form of 'fear of losing control' over Irish affairs is really the driving force behind the anti-bailout feeling throughout Ireland.
The Irish Enterprise Minister Batt O'Keeffe recently told journalists "It has been a very hard-won sovereignty for this country and the government is not going to give over that sovereignty to anyone." Those on the street proud of their Irish heritage and in full memory of the campaign for Irish independence also support an Ireland that will not turn humiliated to the EU cap in hand, but instead can resolve its financial crisis by its own ways and means.
Thus, Ireland proposes a different manner than borrowing to get its economy back on track; much like the Coalition government here in the UK, the Irish government will shortly be announcing an austerity drive to combat the colossal debt problems plaguing the economy. The figures that are being announced round the ball park are quite staggering, with plans culminating to bring the structural deficit down to around 9% GDP by 2011. The fear is that although this may encourage inward investment once more into the Irish economy, the real economy (small businesses and local employment infrastructures) will suffer greatly from the loss of disposable income and government funding for grassroots business, sending demand plummeting, unemployment rising, benefit costs soaring, and thus the Irish economy back into recession.
By taking either proposed route to promised economic safety, the Irish government and subsequently citizens will be facing tough consequences for their bankers' actions; do the government save sovereignty and debt and try to save the Irish economy through an austerity drive which runs the real risk of tipping the economy back into recession, or do they accept the bailout from the EU to kick start the economy at the cost of dignity and influence? As a proud and dignified people, the Irish would seem to be moving towards the former like many EU and worldwide capitalist economies. The real question is, can their real, grassroots economy take the strain as well as its richer MEDC counterparts? Economies such as the USA and the UK have previously recovered from financial unstabilities through measures of austerity after artificial (government fiscle stimulus created) growth has restarted econimic growth. However, economics is highly contextual and relies on 'confidence' of the public and inevstors alike; if any country emabarks on a voyage of high levels of cuts and taxing, then they run the risk of stunting growth and stagnating the economy; to none so more is this relevant than to economies, like Ireland's, that havent started growing at a consistant pace once more. If this turns out to be the case for Ireland, it will be a bigger bailout, bigger humiliation, and bigger loss of sovereignty over to Brussels.
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
The Big Question - How Can the Tuition Fee Raise Be Justified?
OPINION by Joe Ahern
The recently published Browne review recommended changes to higher education funding in England. Some of these changes are to be taken on by the current Conservative and Liberal government. The report recommended that the cap on student fees be removed, but with a levy on those universities that charged over £6,000 in order to cover the cost of student finance on those courses, with repayments starting after graduate's pay passes the £21,000 yearly threshold. The justification for this being that this places the cost of a degree onto the student rather than the taxpayer, the current system being unaffordable due to the poor state of public finances. It is this proposed change to the system that has been met with fury by the National Union of Students, the University and College Union, and others.
The arguments put forward against this are that this will inhibit or at least discourage poorer students from taking a degree. If the Browne review is implemented, it is said, it will harm meritocracy and higher education will become either simply dominated by the well off, or a two-tier system where the rich will attend elite universities, and the poor will attend cheaper universities of a lower standard.
It is my view that these worries are misplaced. Firstly, the government have made it clear that the cap will not be removed. It will remain in place; probably we are told at around £9,000. The whole cost of tuition will still be covered by low interest loans from the government. It also seems apparent that most of those concerned about the changes have not read the other proposals in the Browne review that are likely to be adopted. Students will only have to start repaying their loans when they are earning £21,000 a year, and then at a rate of about £7 a week. Maintenance grants are to be both increased for poorer students and the top income bracket for those eligible for them increased.
It is unlikely that these changes will price anyone out of university. However I must admit, if they go some way towards eliminating the view of university as simply the default option, then they will be a good thing. It is reasonable to make students incur the cost of their own education not just out of fairness to those who are eventually footing the bill, the taxpayers, but because it makes economic sense. Free or heavily subsidised services increase demand for those services exponentially. The often quoted figure of 50% of students going to university is no accident; it is a result of offering students educational opportunities at considerably below cost. University and the degree itself have been for too long held up as the be all and end all of post 18 education. Alternatives such as apprenticeships, colleges and paid work have been over looked for too long, that is one cost of our past policies on higher education. The other is of course hundreds of thousands of graduates flooding the job market with skills that employers do not require, sociologists end up in starbucks, historians at call centres etc; this needs correcting.
I will summarise by saying that these changes are to be welcomed, we can look forward to a better funded, and perhaps even less crowded, higher education system. We can also take heart that they may go a small way to curing this country of its crippling public sector debts. A final word about the recent protests: Violence is to be deplored in a democracy, I would say this even if I agreed with the proposals so I expect others to say so too. However I think that the irresponsible and inflammatory response to the proposed changes by the NUS, particularly Aaron Porter, made such outbursts inevitable. I applaud that he has condemned the violence, though others in the NUS have not, but for matters of expediency a bill for the damage at Milbank tower should arrive at the door of NUS HQ post haste.
The recently published Browne review recommended changes to higher education funding in England. Some of these changes are to be taken on by the current Conservative and Liberal government. The report recommended that the cap on student fees be removed, but with a levy on those universities that charged over £6,000 in order to cover the cost of student finance on those courses, with repayments starting after graduate's pay passes the £21,000 yearly threshold. The justification for this being that this places the cost of a degree onto the student rather than the taxpayer, the current system being unaffordable due to the poor state of public finances. It is this proposed change to the system that has been met with fury by the National Union of Students, the University and College Union, and others.
The arguments put forward against this are that this will inhibit or at least discourage poorer students from taking a degree. If the Browne review is implemented, it is said, it will harm meritocracy and higher education will become either simply dominated by the well off, or a two-tier system where the rich will attend elite universities, and the poor will attend cheaper universities of a lower standard.
It is my view that these worries are misplaced. Firstly, the government have made it clear that the cap will not be removed. It will remain in place; probably we are told at around £9,000. The whole cost of tuition will still be covered by low interest loans from the government. It also seems apparent that most of those concerned about the changes have not read the other proposals in the Browne review that are likely to be adopted. Students will only have to start repaying their loans when they are earning £21,000 a year, and then at a rate of about £7 a week. Maintenance grants are to be both increased for poorer students and the top income bracket for those eligible for them increased.
It is unlikely that these changes will price anyone out of university. However I must admit, if they go some way towards eliminating the view of university as simply the default option, then they will be a good thing. It is reasonable to make students incur the cost of their own education not just out of fairness to those who are eventually footing the bill, the taxpayers, but because it makes economic sense. Free or heavily subsidised services increase demand for those services exponentially. The often quoted figure of 50% of students going to university is no accident; it is a result of offering students educational opportunities at considerably below cost. University and the degree itself have been for too long held up as the be all and end all of post 18 education. Alternatives such as apprenticeships, colleges and paid work have been over looked for too long, that is one cost of our past policies on higher education. The other is of course hundreds of thousands of graduates flooding the job market with skills that employers do not require, sociologists end up in starbucks, historians at call centres etc; this needs correcting.
I will summarise by saying that these changes are to be welcomed, we can look forward to a better funded, and perhaps even less crowded, higher education system. We can also take heart that they may go a small way to curing this country of its crippling public sector debts. A final word about the recent protests: Violence is to be deplored in a democracy, I would say this even if I agreed with the proposals so I expect others to say so too. However I think that the irresponsible and inflammatory response to the proposed changes by the NUS, particularly Aaron Porter, made such outbursts inevitable. I applaud that he has condemned the violence, though others in the NUS have not, but for matters of expediency a bill for the damage at Milbank tower should arrive at the door of NUS HQ post haste.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)