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.
Thursday, 11 November 2010
The Big Protest - Feelings From The Ground
UPDATE from Siobhan Bligh
On a sunny but cold autumn day, 52 thousand-students and activists took to the streets to fight for the right to a fair system of higher education, and I was one of them. The sight of the Houses of Parliament over the heads of thousands of students, that usually fills me with a sense of awe and humbleness, looked insignificant in the shadow of student solidarity. As we shuffled down Whitehall, the towering sandstone blocks shut themselves away from the truth, that the coalition has created rage in people (well over double the 20-thousand expected attended the march) , and that the pleas of “but New Labour left us in this mess”, only carries so much weight behind it. Upon returning home from the protest it became apparent that the news was about one story only, the anarchists that blockaded Millibank Tower. The 52-thousand voices of peaceful protest remain unheard, their efforts destroyed by the actions of balaclava-clad hooligans.
Outside the Millibank tower, (head quarters of the Conservative Party) there was a fiery air of excitement. We all knew we were doing something out of bounds after walking past pale-faced stewards, who pleaded with us to turn around and “stay out of trouble”. The cheerfulness of the day turned to hysterical delight at the chance to show the Tories, how angry we were with their cuts to education directly; many of us had spent the day chanting “no ifs, no buts, no education cuts!” Drums pounded a carnival beat and the chanting increased, bodies pushed close together got more and more hysterical as fires were lit and flares were sparked. As one of the two-thousand students outside Millibank, I can vouch that the trouble was started by a few individuals. The vibe was good, myself and friends dancing whilst releasing our anger at the Tories in a peaceful (albeit loud) way.
After the building was broken into, the mood changed, and when the fire-extinguisher was thrown at the police, the crowd below was horrified, and started shouting “stop throwing s***!”, angrily at the anarchists and ajoined students sucked into the craze up on the roof. We walked aside to take some photos, and saw the riot police. It then became quickly obvious that some people had gone too far, they had smashed their way into Millibank and created senseless havoc. The news quickly became flooded with stories about students rioting, and police failure. It is appalling that people could not contain their anger to the dancing and chanting that was peaceful and strong. Shame on those that resorted to violence to express their anger. Most students are angry that their peaceful efforts have now been sabotaged. We needed to show that we are angry and willing to fight these cuts, but violence undermines the strength of our unity and peaceful message. We must call upon Liberal Democrat MPs to break party ranks and vote against this rise in tuition fees, this can only be done with a clear mind and a non-violent protest.
On a sunny but cold autumn day, 52 thousand-students and activists took to the streets to fight for the right to a fair system of higher education, and I was one of them. The sight of the Houses of Parliament over the heads of thousands of students, that usually fills me with a sense of awe and humbleness, looked insignificant in the shadow of student solidarity. As we shuffled down Whitehall, the towering sandstone blocks shut themselves away from the truth, that the coalition has created rage in people (well over double the 20-thousand expected attended the march) , and that the pleas of “but New Labour left us in this mess”, only carries so much weight behind it. Upon returning home from the protest it became apparent that the news was about one story only, the anarchists that blockaded Millibank Tower. The 52-thousand voices of peaceful protest remain unheard, their efforts destroyed by the actions of balaclava-clad hooligans.
Outside the Millibank tower, (head quarters of the Conservative Party) there was a fiery air of excitement. We all knew we were doing something out of bounds after walking past pale-faced stewards, who pleaded with us to turn around and “stay out of trouble”. The cheerfulness of the day turned to hysterical delight at the chance to show the Tories, how angry we were with their cuts to education directly; many of us had spent the day chanting “no ifs, no buts, no education cuts!” Drums pounded a carnival beat and the chanting increased, bodies pushed close together got more and more hysterical as fires were lit and flares were sparked. As one of the two-thousand students outside Millibank, I can vouch that the trouble was started by a few individuals. The vibe was good, myself and friends dancing whilst releasing our anger at the Tories in a peaceful (albeit loud) way.
After the building was broken into, the mood changed, and when the fire-extinguisher was thrown at the police, the crowd below was horrified, and started shouting “stop throwing s***!”, angrily at the anarchists and ajoined students sucked into the craze up on the roof. We walked aside to take some photos, and saw the riot police. It then became quickly obvious that some people had gone too far, they had smashed their way into Millibank and created senseless havoc. The news quickly became flooded with stories about students rioting, and police failure. It is appalling that people could not contain their anger to the dancing and chanting that was peaceful and strong. Shame on those that resorted to violence to express their anger. Most students are angry that their peaceful efforts have now been sabotaged. We needed to show that we are angry and willing to fight these cuts, but violence undermines the strength of our unity and peaceful message. We must call upon Liberal Democrat MPs to break party ranks and vote against this rise in tuition fees, this can only be done with a clear mind and a non-violent protest.
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Harriet Harman the Horrible - An Analysis of the Shadow Deputy Leader's Fortnight from PR Hell
ANALYSIS by Patrick English
In the space of two weeks, Harriet Harman has managed to plummet from being the reputed appointed Shadow Deputy Prime Minister down to the most unpopular and disowned member of the upper echelons of the Labour Party Hierarchy. Harman has always been outspoken, strong, and sometimes controversial in her political career; a trait which won her the respect and positions in Blair and Brown's governments alike, but has now cost her the respect of the Labour back-benchers, and one would presume the leadership sooner rather than later.
What precisely has Harman said these past weeks to create this swell of anger and distances against her, politicians in the British sphere are expected to release non-sensual, outspoken and ideological comments in the face of logic and reason to justify policies or beliefs are they not? Well, firstly there was the comment which enraged half the population of Scotland and its leadership, that which related to her slating of the Chief Secutary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander;
The former comment was made to the Scottish Labour Party, in all its Westminster and Hollyrood form, in and amongst a damning assessment of what the Liberal Democrat Party were doing in coalition with the Conservative Party. The comment caused fury amongst the red-headed population of Scotland, who called the insult completely 'anti-Scottish' and that Harman had no right to be dismissing someone's political works or beliefs due to their hair colour and instead should formulate a proper argument. The SNP called her insult "childish", and Shirley-Anne Somerville (MSP) that;
[Harman's] “silly remark isn’t anti-Danny or anti-Lib Dem, it’s anti-Scottish”.
The Scottish Liberal Democrat Chairman also weighed in on the issue in defense of 'Danny' , pointing out the lowness of the comment, adding;
The latter comment was in response to an election court ruling that one Mr Woolas had 'spread lies' in his eventually successful election campaign, by 103 votes, in Oldham East and Saddleworth. Harman immediately released 'the official Labour Party line', suggesting that even if Mr Woolas managed to get the decision overturned, his suspension from the Labour Party would not end, and they would not welcome him back into the Parliamentary Labour Party. Harman stated that such an overturning;
Why the great backlash from the Parliamentary Labour Party? Mr Woolas was seen as a stalwart of the grassroots Labour Party by many, and although never recognised by the senior membership, the back-benchers always we favorable towards his views and respected the 'great service' he had given to the party over the years. In short, it has become a battleground for the PLP against what has been seen as a dissociated, authoritarian, and irresponsible Labour Leadership spanning back to the turn of the century.
In all honesty, it would really appear that much of the rage and fury surrounding Harman's latest two 'gaffes' are not much to do with Harman herself or her views, but have been taken as opportunities by two differing sets of politicians to create a battleground against the Labour Party Leadership, of which admittedly Harman is a big part; The Lid Dem and SNP parties have called out Harman and the Labour Party as having 'lost the plot' and being 'anti-Scottish' for the red-head comment in an effort to quash the recent poll climbing of the party, and the PLP has used the disowning of Mr Woolas in an attempt to bring down the Labour Leadership from what they feel as almost a separate, self proclaimed higher entity, and back down to representing the views and beliefs of the grassroots Party. Still, what remains is the fact that Harman did make the rather childish and nigh on discriminatory comment in Scotland, and then went straight on to controversially shun Mr Woolas. If perhaps not guilty of being a raging, arrogant fool, she certainly is not tactful.
In the space of two weeks, Harriet Harman has managed to plummet from being the reputed appointed Shadow Deputy Prime Minister down to the most unpopular and disowned member of the upper echelons of the Labour Party Hierarchy. Harman has always been outspoken, strong, and sometimes controversial in her political career; a trait which won her the respect and positions in Blair and Brown's governments alike, but has now cost her the respect of the Labour back-benchers, and one would presume the leadership sooner rather than later.
What precisely has Harman said these past weeks to create this swell of anger and distances against her, politicians in the British sphere are expected to release non-sensual, outspoken and ideological comments in the face of logic and reason to justify policies or beliefs are they not? Well, firstly there was the comment which enraged half the population of Scotland and its leadership, that which related to her slating of the Chief Secutary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander;
"Now, many of us in the Labour Party are conservationists - and we all love the red squirrel. But there is one ginger rodent which we never want to see again - Danny Alexander."More recently, there has been the disowning of the recently 'sacked' MP Phil Woolas after it emerged that he may have broken electoral rules when winning his seat this election;
"It is not part of Labour's politics for somebody to be telling lies to get themselves elected,"These two comments are seemingly well representative of the Labour Party's, and Harman in particular, traditionally highly aggressive political nature, but have both caused outrage. Harman has appologised to the Chief Secutary personally by phone, and some members of the Labour Party have supported Harman in her disengagement from Woolas, claiming it sensible. So why do storms still rage over these issues?
The former comment was made to the Scottish Labour Party, in all its Westminster and Hollyrood form, in and amongst a damning assessment of what the Liberal Democrat Party were doing in coalition with the Conservative Party. The comment caused fury amongst the red-headed population of Scotland, who called the insult completely 'anti-Scottish' and that Harman had no right to be dismissing someone's political works or beliefs due to their hair colour and instead should formulate a proper argument. The SNP called her insult "childish", and Shirley-Anne Somerville (MSP) that;
[Harman's] “silly remark isn’t anti-Danny or anti-Lib Dem, it’s anti-Scottish”.
The Scottish Liberal Democrat Chairman also weighed in on the issue in defense of 'Danny' , pointing out the lowness of the comment, adding;
"There are no depths to which the Labour Party will not stoop. They aren't fit to be in opposition, let alone in government."All in all, the reaction from Scotland that her remark provoked will not the the one which Harman and the Labour party would have hoped for. No doubt this move will have annoyed the various electoral and policy brains of the Labour party, as they attempt to latch on to anti-Liberal Democrat feelings in Scotland: a traditional Lib-Dem strong area. With this now under question, the rival parties In Scotland are jumping at the opportunity to gain ground on the Labour Party. Seemingly the comment has been leapt upon by the SNP and Lib Dem parties, fearful of a Labour resurgence, as an opportunity to demonstrate just how distant from the public at large the Labour Party still remain, indeed this view can be seen in the latter part of Somerville's reaction to Harman's comment;
“Coming from the doyenne of po-faced political correctness, these remarks show she and Labour have lost the plot since losing the election."
The latter comment was in response to an election court ruling that one Mr Woolas had 'spread lies' in his eventually successful election campaign, by 103 votes, in Oldham East and Saddleworth. Harman immediately released 'the official Labour Party line', suggesting that even if Mr Woolas managed to get the decision overturned, his suspension from the Labour Party would not end, and they would not welcome him back into the Parliamentary Labour Party. Harman stated that such an overturning;
"won't change the facts that were found by the election court, which was that he said things that were untrue knowing it, and that is what we are taking action on - because it is not part of Labour's politics for somebody to be telling lies to get themselves elected."The disowning of Mr Woolas backfired hugely on Harman and the senior members of the Labour Party who decided to take this line, with many back-benchers infuriated at the lack of support shown to the lower tiers of the party by the seemingly distant upper members. The feelings are not simply of disengagement from Harman, they are real feelings of hatred and anger, one MP in a private meeting has been said to have called Harman 'a disgrace' to her face. Others are suggesting within the party that Harman should be 'considering her position' as Deputy Leader.
Why the great backlash from the Parliamentary Labour Party? Mr Woolas was seen as a stalwart of the grassroots Labour Party by many, and although never recognised by the senior membership, the back-benchers always we favorable towards his views and respected the 'great service' he had given to the party over the years. In short, it has become a battleground for the PLP against what has been seen as a dissociated, authoritarian, and irresponsible Labour Leadership spanning back to the turn of the century.
In all honesty, it would really appear that much of the rage and fury surrounding Harman's latest two 'gaffes' are not much to do with Harman herself or her views, but have been taken as opportunities by two differing sets of politicians to create a battleground against the Labour Party Leadership, of which admittedly Harman is a big part; The Lid Dem and SNP parties have called out Harman and the Labour Party as having 'lost the plot' and being 'anti-Scottish' for the red-head comment in an effort to quash the recent poll climbing of the party, and the PLP has used the disowning of Mr Woolas in an attempt to bring down the Labour Leadership from what they feel as almost a separate, self proclaimed higher entity, and back down to representing the views and beliefs of the grassroots Party. Still, what remains is the fact that Harman did make the rather childish and nigh on discriminatory comment in Scotland, and then went straight on to controversially shun Mr Woolas. If perhaps not guilty of being a raging, arrogant fool, she certainly is not tactful.
Sunday, 7 November 2010
Liberal Democrats In Power - A Reasoned Defence of Clegg's Coalition Gamble
OPINION by Ben Mackay
When David Cameron and the Conservatives formed a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, millions of people around the country had one thing to say about Britain’s third largest party: they called them traitors. For many on the left the Conservatives are the Evil Party, and any partnership with them is tantamount to, if not worse than, marrying the devil. Amidst all the ripping up of membership cards and incandescent rage, honest analysis of the Liberal Democrat position was lost.
The Lib Dems definitely had a bad election. They won only 57 seats. For Lib Dem and Labour voters the much-desired coalition between the two parties would yield 215 seats, exactly equal to the Conservatives and Democratic Unionists. There was the possibility of pulling ahead of the enemy, with a mixture of Alliance Party and Social Democratic and Labour party MPs. This would have left the hoped for coalition with a stunning majority of four. Many people might say “we’ll take it. Anything to stop the dreaded Conservatives!” In the 2005 parliament there were sixteen by-elections which resulted in the Labour government losing four seats. If a similar thing was to happen to a Labour-Liberal Democrat government then they would be tied with the Conservatives and Unionists.
What about the Green party MP, Plaid Cymru and the SNP? They would support a coalition that didn’t include the Conservatives and this would mean the government has the implicit or complicit support of 326 MPs, a majority of the House of Commons. However this argument runs into problems. Plaid Cymru and the SNP are regional parties that are in government to represent their parts of the nation. With a weak government reliant on their support, it is likely they would put pressure on introducing policies beneficial to Wales and Scotland, such as less severe spending cuts in their regions, meaning larger cuts in other parts of the country. There is the possibility that a Labour- Lib Dem government could threaten the smaller parties into supporting their government or have to deal with a Conservative government. But immediately this is bringing a great deal of risk and uncertainty to a government beginning at a time of economic trouble. Add on top of this the list of Labour MPs who wanted Labour to go into opposition and you have got a ludicrously unstable government. I doubt it would have lasted longer than a week. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/7708071/Labour-MPs-fear-Browns-plan-could-destroy-the-Left.html)
So it seems clear that a Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition is ruled out in any way, shape or form. The country needed a government and the Lib Dems had only a few options: allow a Conservative minority government to try to get policies through on an individual basis, give support to a minority Conservative government in return for Liberal Democrat policies or enter into a formal coalition with the Conservatives.
Many commentators have argued that a minority Conservative government would have resulted in another election around now. I think that in reality this would have most likely resulted in a Conservative majority government, 'the worst of all worlds' so say the left. Why would this be so? 1) The Conservatives would have had a lot more money than both Labour and the Liberal Democrats. 2) The Conservatives could easily argue the need for another election was because minority governments did not work – the public would want something decisive and electing a Conservative government would be the clearest option. 3) The Lib Dem vote could have collapsed as people saw that, in the state of a hung parliament, they didn’t seem to do anything. Most Lib Dem seats are Lib Dem – Tory marginals so this would have benefited the Conservatives. It is not clear the Conservatives would win but it seems a likelihood. The Coalition prevents this from happening.
Now, preventing a Conservative majority is one argument for the Coalition, but there are other positive arguments. The Liberal Democrats, like any party, want power so they can implement policies. This Coalition has allowed them to gain a referendum for AV, a Pupil Premium directing money to the poorest students, a cut in income tax for the lowest earners, an end to detention of children for immigration purposes and a halt in the deportation of gay asylum seekers. These are valuable gains. It is true that many Lib Dem policies have been and are being left out of the Coalition. Reversals over tuition fees and how to approach the national debt are hard to stomach and there are strong arguments that these should be fought. However if we consider the case of whether the Lib Dems should have gone into Coalition we can weigh up: a Coalition government with Lib Dem policies versus a minority Conservative government likely calling an Autumn election and a good chance of them winning it outright.
When David Cameron and the Conservatives formed a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, millions of people around the country had one thing to say about Britain’s third largest party: they called them traitors. For many on the left the Conservatives are the Evil Party, and any partnership with them is tantamount to, if not worse than, marrying the devil. Amidst all the ripping up of membership cards and incandescent rage, honest analysis of the Liberal Democrat position was lost.
The Lib Dems definitely had a bad election. They won only 57 seats. For Lib Dem and Labour voters the much-desired coalition between the two parties would yield 215 seats, exactly equal to the Conservatives and Democratic Unionists. There was the possibility of pulling ahead of the enemy, with a mixture of Alliance Party and Social Democratic and Labour party MPs. This would have left the hoped for coalition with a stunning majority of four. Many people might say “we’ll take it. Anything to stop the dreaded Conservatives!” In the 2005 parliament there were sixteen by-elections which resulted in the Labour government losing four seats. If a similar thing was to happen to a Labour-Liberal Democrat government then they would be tied with the Conservatives and Unionists.
What about the Green party MP, Plaid Cymru and the SNP? They would support a coalition that didn’t include the Conservatives and this would mean the government has the implicit or complicit support of 326 MPs, a majority of the House of Commons. However this argument runs into problems. Plaid Cymru and the SNP are regional parties that are in government to represent their parts of the nation. With a weak government reliant on their support, it is likely they would put pressure on introducing policies beneficial to Wales and Scotland, such as less severe spending cuts in their regions, meaning larger cuts in other parts of the country. There is the possibility that a Labour- Lib Dem government could threaten the smaller parties into supporting their government or have to deal with a Conservative government. But immediately this is bringing a great deal of risk and uncertainty to a government beginning at a time of economic trouble. Add on top of this the list of Labour MPs who wanted Labour to go into opposition and you have got a ludicrously unstable government. I doubt it would have lasted longer than a week. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/7708071/Labour-MPs-fear-Browns-plan-could-destroy-the-Left.html)
So it seems clear that a Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition is ruled out in any way, shape or form. The country needed a government and the Lib Dems had only a few options: allow a Conservative minority government to try to get policies through on an individual basis, give support to a minority Conservative government in return for Liberal Democrat policies or enter into a formal coalition with the Conservatives.
Many commentators have argued that a minority Conservative government would have resulted in another election around now. I think that in reality this would have most likely resulted in a Conservative majority government, 'the worst of all worlds' so say the left. Why would this be so? 1) The Conservatives would have had a lot more money than both Labour and the Liberal Democrats. 2) The Conservatives could easily argue the need for another election was because minority governments did not work – the public would want something decisive and electing a Conservative government would be the clearest option. 3) The Lib Dem vote could have collapsed as people saw that, in the state of a hung parliament, they didn’t seem to do anything. Most Lib Dem seats are Lib Dem – Tory marginals so this would have benefited the Conservatives. It is not clear the Conservatives would win but it seems a likelihood. The Coalition prevents this from happening.
Now, preventing a Conservative majority is one argument for the Coalition, but there are other positive arguments. The Liberal Democrats, like any party, want power so they can implement policies. This Coalition has allowed them to gain a referendum for AV, a Pupil Premium directing money to the poorest students, a cut in income tax for the lowest earners, an end to detention of children for immigration purposes and a halt in the deportation of gay asylum seekers. These are valuable gains. It is true that many Lib Dem policies have been and are being left out of the Coalition. Reversals over tuition fees and how to approach the national debt are hard to stomach and there are strong arguments that these should be fought. However if we consider the case of whether the Lib Dems should have gone into Coalition we can weigh up: a Coalition government with Lib Dem policies versus a minority Conservative government likely calling an Autumn election and a good chance of them winning it outright.
Friday, 5 November 2010
The US Mid Term Elections: A Complete Analysis
ANALYSIS by Sam Neagus
So Obama has suffered an irreversible setback. Well you’d think so wouldn’t you? I don’t buy into that argument at all. Yes, the Democratic Party’s appeal has so quickly dissipated since Barack Obama’s election to the White House in 2008, but the Republican’s success certainly does not mean that they are to go on and effectively challenge for the Presidency, or even come together as a united force to block anything Obama wants to pass through Congress.
So Obama has suffered an irreversible setback. Well you’d think so wouldn’t you? I don’t buy into that argument at all. Yes, the Democratic Party’s appeal has so quickly dissipated since Barack Obama’s election to the White House in 2008, but the Republican’s success certainly does not mean that they are to go on and effectively challenge for the Presidency, or even come together as a united force to block anything Obama wants to pass through Congress.
This election has certainly been characterized by the extraordinary rise to prominence of the Tea Party Movement, a right-wing grass-roots movement who have policies such as anti-abortion, restoration of traditional moral values, and perhaps most importantly anti-tax (as a way of reducing the size and scope of the Federal government). Needless to say they are vehemently opposed to Obama’s plans to increase the welfare state and health-care coverage. Supporters of the movement have openly called Obama a dictator with communist ideas.
Whilst this group have enjoyed considerable success during this mid-term cycle: Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida have ensured that the movement is represented in Congress, which has certainly caused a headache for Obama as he seeks to continue to push through his left-wing agenda, he however
must be encouraged to see that some Tea Party-backed candidates have failed to achieve electoral success: Christine O’Donnell, the extreme right wing candidate who has extreme views such as anti-masturbation and sees any sort of welfare state as socialist, was defeated by a Democrat in Delaware (a traditionally liberal state) despite electoral support from the heroine of the Tea Party movement, none other than Momma Grizzly (Sarah Palin).
All 435 seats from the House of Representatives were up for re-election (except one seat filled by Puerto Rico, which has a four year term), and the results make for depressing reading for any Democrat sympathiser or supporter. The party lost more seats at any election since 1938, and their healthy majority has been replaced by a Republican-controlled House.
So why have the American population lost faith in Obama’s Party, especially since there was so much faith in them just two years ago? There is no simple answer to this. Whilst on one hand, almost a third of Americans in a CNN Poll think that they would suffer should Obama (a liberal Democrat) pass his full agenda and continue to plow money into his economic recovery plans, most do not blame him for the rapid decline in American prosperity. Many conservative American activists have exploited this and effectively shown the danger in allowing the Democrats to continue their dominance of the Federal government in Washington D.C.
The figures for the Senate paint a different picture: whilst the staggered elections (where Senators serve a six-year term) meant that only thirty-seven seats were up for election, voters gave the Democrat Party a (razor-thin) majority. Whilst not all the results have been announced when this article was written the Democrats have reached 51 seats in total); it has baffled many pollsters and analysts that this has happened.
However, to fully understand the reasons for this one must look at the unicameral powers of the upper, arguably more influential chamber on Capitol Hill. The Senate has extensive powers relating to foreign affairs and ratifying Presidential appointees to influential positions throughout the Federal government, thus I would speculate that many voters see the Democrats as a responsible force in this field, and one might even argue that they are pleased with Obama (and the Democratic Party’s) progress in taking decisive action in foreign crises and international relations in general.
As many outlets in the press have argued, the importance of these mid-term Congressional elections has been that they have been a referendum on the progress of Obama’s administration in its first couple of years. I would once again take a sceptical view of their importance: the turnout in elections has been typically lower than those in Presidential elections showing that many voters are still not willing to negatively judge Obama, and will perhaps give him longer to prove himself in improving the economic situation.
Undoubtedly, the 112th Congress (which begins on January 3rd 2011) will have lengthy, and bitter disputes with the President, and ultimately try to make his life exceptionally difficult. The reduced Senate majority makes it possible for an individual Senator to filibuster a Bill (taking up all the floor-time available for debate talking about trivial matters) but perhaps even Republican Senators will realise that the sole purpose of the stimulus packages are for the greater good of the nation, and taking a ‘laissez-faire’ could prove disastrous and put any sort of recovery in jeopardy.
Whilst Obama might be concerned about his party’s poor performance in the polls, he should not be too worried about his own electoral prospects just yet. Let us not forget that Bill Clinton faced exactly the same problem in the 1994 mid-terms when the Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich’s and his ‘Contract with America’ made life difficult for him, and some even suggested the prospect of his defeat in 1996. Of course, as history recalls this did not happen, and after Clinton changed his priorities and electoral promises, he will be remembered as a strong personality and one who was hugely successful.
Even more importantly, his opposition have yet to come up with a credible opponent. There are talks of Sarah Palin putting herself forward for the Republican nomination. This could prove to be disastrous for the party, as there is every possibility that she will alienate the GOP’s more moderate supporters. No need for Barack Obama to run scared just yet. In fact, Obama needs to stand his ground and ensure that his programme has every chance of being passed by taking decisive action and use strong rhetoric.
Wednesday, 3 November 2010
Crime,Votes, and Punishment - Voting for Inmates on the Table
ANALYSIS by Patrick English
The right to vote, should it be extended to all citizens, or should it only be handed to the law abiding, responsible citizens of the UK? This is the question being posed to Mark Harper, the Constitutional Reform Minister, ahead of Ken Clarke's eagerly anticipated Justice Review. Traditionally on social policy, both the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Parties stand on much more liberal, freedom invoking ground, promoting civil liberties and rights. However, to what extent is a convicted criminal a citizen worthy of rights?
The European Court of Human Rights in 2005 ruled that the 140 year old law banning prisoners from voting in general elections was unlawful under the Human Rights Act. They insisted that, law breaker or not, the right to vote should be extended to inmates. Lord Faulkner spoke out against the ruling of the ECHR, and the Labour Party ignored the ruling under Faulkner's guidance until they were removed from power in 2010. However, Harper has had to take a second look at the ruling as the new government sets out its justice and constitutional agenda.
Firstly, the very aspect of punishing a criminal by taking away their right to freedom of movement and action is in fact denying them real citizenship already. Surely then, the denying of a vote for inmates is simply extending the punishment of 'belittled citizenship'? If a man has simply a history of stealing cars, it shouldn't hinder his ability to make an informed judgement about who to vote for in a general election. So on that logic it would be wrong to deny the vote for inmates on an intellect or capability level, so the anti argument must purely be ethical or moral. So therefore, if a man has taken the life of another man, surely it cannot be just for him then to be able to vote for the party which could and probably will then go on to decide and impose the levels of severity of the punishment placed on him and legislation concerning his release and prison life? It surely is a good enhancement to deny said killer the simple right to vote, as a reminder that he has done serious wrong? In a radio interview, Mick Gradwell, a former Deputy Superintendent for Lancashire Police, said that giving inmates the right to vote using the Human Rights Act would be 'distasteful'. He stated;
Faulkner himself said that, aside from moral arguments against giving prisoners the vote, there would also be immense costs in administering the removal of it, setting up the a voting format for inmates, and compensating those already denied. So surely it would be much easier and more moral to simply continue denying prisoners the right to vote? Some, including probably most of the Labour Party, would agree, but others would not.
However, prison is supposed to be as equally orientated with rehabilitation of criminals as it is the punishment of them. Those in favour of giving inmates the vote have claimed that denying criminals this right is treating them as if they were not adults, as the vote is obtained at 18 with adulthood, which in no way helps the rehabilitation process. A good argument perhaps from the pro-enfranchising side is that, in fact, some inmates already are given the vote. Those awaiting retrial for instance are allowed to vote in general elections, as are those imprisoned for contempt of court and fine defaulters. If these offenders are handed the vote, how easy would it be to extend it to all inmates? Faulkner would argue that such an extension would occur with great difficulty, but Harper seems to be favouring implamenting the law and therefore making this extension. David Cameron has also moved into the debate, widely suggesting that the government should consider making this move, but is expected to resist and proposed changes to the law which will allow the most serious offenders, serial killers or child murderers for example, being given the vote.
It would appear then that the government will indeed be extending the enfranchisement to criminals, but perhaps not all. As far as one can tell from the arguments, there are two possible routes that the government can take; it could either upset the ECHR and continue to deny the right to vote for inmates on moral and cost grounds, or it could maintain and uphold its largerly liberal views on social policy and allow the less serious offenders who are imprisoned, to vote.
quote and info source: BBC Report Article inc. Gradwell's Interview
The right to vote, should it be extended to all citizens, or should it only be handed to the law abiding, responsible citizens of the UK? This is the question being posed to Mark Harper, the Constitutional Reform Minister, ahead of Ken Clarke's eagerly anticipated Justice Review. Traditionally on social policy, both the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Parties stand on much more liberal, freedom invoking ground, promoting civil liberties and rights. However, to what extent is a convicted criminal a citizen worthy of rights?
The European Court of Human Rights in 2005 ruled that the 140 year old law banning prisoners from voting in general elections was unlawful under the Human Rights Act. They insisted that, law breaker or not, the right to vote should be extended to inmates. Lord Faulkner spoke out against the ruling of the ECHR, and the Labour Party ignored the ruling under Faulkner's guidance until they were removed from power in 2010. However, Harper has had to take a second look at the ruling as the new government sets out its justice and constitutional agenda.
Firstly, the very aspect of punishing a criminal by taking away their right to freedom of movement and action is in fact denying them real citizenship already. Surely then, the denying of a vote for inmates is simply extending the punishment of 'belittled citizenship'? If a man has simply a history of stealing cars, it shouldn't hinder his ability to make an informed judgement about who to vote for in a general election. So on that logic it would be wrong to deny the vote for inmates on an intellect or capability level, so the anti argument must purely be ethical or moral. So therefore, if a man has taken the life of another man, surely it cannot be just for him then to be able to vote for the party which could and probably will then go on to decide and impose the levels of severity of the punishment placed on him and legislation concerning his release and prison life? It surely is a good enhancement to deny said killer the simple right to vote, as a reminder that he has done serious wrong? In a radio interview, Mick Gradwell, a former Deputy Superintendent for Lancashire Police, said that giving inmates the right to vote using the Human Rights Act would be 'distasteful'. He stated;
“the Human Rights Act is again being used to give rights to criminals, when you rarely ever see it being used to give rights to the law abiding people.”
Faulkner himself said that, aside from moral arguments against giving prisoners the vote, there would also be immense costs in administering the removal of it, setting up the a voting format for inmates, and compensating those already denied. So surely it would be much easier and more moral to simply continue denying prisoners the right to vote? Some, including probably most of the Labour Party, would agree, but others would not.
However, prison is supposed to be as equally orientated with rehabilitation of criminals as it is the punishment of them. Those in favour of giving inmates the vote have claimed that denying criminals this right is treating them as if they were not adults, as the vote is obtained at 18 with adulthood, which in no way helps the rehabilitation process. A good argument perhaps from the pro-enfranchising side is that, in fact, some inmates already are given the vote. Those awaiting retrial for instance are allowed to vote in general elections, as are those imprisoned for contempt of court and fine defaulters. If these offenders are handed the vote, how easy would it be to extend it to all inmates? Faulkner would argue that such an extension would occur with great difficulty, but Harper seems to be favouring implamenting the law and therefore making this extension. David Cameron has also moved into the debate, widely suggesting that the government should consider making this move, but is expected to resist and proposed changes to the law which will allow the most serious offenders, serial killers or child murderers for example, being given the vote.
It would appear then that the government will indeed be extending the enfranchisement to criminals, but perhaps not all. As far as one can tell from the arguments, there are two possible routes that the government can take; it could either upset the ECHR and continue to deny the right to vote for inmates on moral and cost grounds, or it could maintain and uphold its largerly liberal views on social policy and allow the less serious offenders who are imprisoned, to vote.
quote and info source: BBC Report Article inc. Gradwell's Interview
Thursday, 21 October 2010
RE: Spending Review, FWD: Banks, Business, and Rich Guys
OPINION by Patrick English
Of course, such a spending review was not announced today, with much of what George Osbourne presented being more of a blanket cutting and taxing as opposed to targeting the rich or banking industry; but what if Osbourne had come up to the dispatch box today an announced that the rich were going to pay through the nose for the recession? What could be implemented to make those with more, pay more? What could we do to ensure that the banks will pay for the damage they caused, especially those which are now under public ownership? And most importantly, would it all work?
To start with, how much of the cuts and taxes will be directly affecting the better off, banks, and businesses? Osbourne announced today that the Bank Levy due to be implemented will become permanent, he expects it to raise around 2.5 billion pounds a year directly from the industry.A bank levy on such levels works out at around 0.06% of each bank's balance sheet over the 3 years, it will affect all major banks but not building societies or smaller banks. Foreign banks with UK operations will pay the levy from the business they do in the country. Numerically it seems a fair enough contribution, but there are two reasons why perhaps the banks have gotten off lightly and should have paid more. Firstly, they received a total of around 850 billion pounds, according to The Independent article citing the National Audit Office, in bailout funds during the recession. This creates a rather odd situation and some confusing maths; the taxpayer actually now owns much of Lloyds TSB and RBS, as well as having significant shares in other high street banks and their subsidies. The banks will be chipping in around 2.5 billion pounds to help reduce the deficit, when 850 billion was spent on them as part of said deficit. On top of this is the overall cost of the recession, which cannot even be pinned down past the immediate cost of what the Labour Government had to do; the maths does not really add up. Secondly, the taxpayer is seeing a rise of 2.5% on their spending from the VAT rise, and similar rises on state pensions contributions, meaning around 5% of their income is being taken from them to help pay for the deficit reduction scheme. The banks' contribution, as previously pointed out, works out at around 0.05%. Surely we should ask them to pay more? Surely we should set a levy at around 0.2% in order to get a fair contribution from the banks that cost us so much? Such a levy would increase the revenue for the treasury to around 10 billion pounds annually.
The idea is good, the taxpayer can now should less of a burden with the banks providing providing more money for the deficit reduction. Large businesses too could also be hit harder, Corporation tax could be raised on exceedingly high profits. Richer members of society could also extend a hand by paying a 60 or 70% top rate of income tax. The problem with a spending review of such a nature is thus; Osbourne pointed out that when making legislation and taxes for banks and large businesses, that the Government had to try and find a balance:
As goes banks and their contribution however, consider this as a potential idea to increase fairness without demanding hefty sums from the banking industry. we could have a system where the 0.05% levy applies to all major banks, and a further levy of say 0.05% is charged equal to the proportion of shares of the bank which the public owns. For instance, Lloyds TSB's Balance Sheet from last year claims income of 46,972,000,000 pounds, an initial blanket levy of 0.05% will raise around 23 million pounds. The government has a 41% share in the bank, so a further levy of 0.05% on 41% of their income would raise a further 9.6 million pounds. The total contribution from Lloyds TSB will therefore be around 32.6 million pounds. The contribution is more, the sums reflect better the level of public ownership in the banks. An idea worth considering, perhaps.
In the end, as a nation we have a choice; do we ask for a numerically large but proportionally small contribution from banks and businesses in order to keep money coming in from them through the tax system, or do we raise taxes and levies to create a surge of tax revenue but run the risk of eventually getting little or no tax from those sources as they move abroad. As much as it pains my left-wing economic leanings to say, I think I prefer the former.
"Today, the Government put forward a highly progressive left-wing spending review with some of the harshest taxation on the rich seen since war time. Large businesses and banks will bear the brunt of tax, with the upper threshold for income tax set to raise to 65%. Bankers bonuses will also be receiving a tax in order to appease the public's anger at their role in bringing about the financial crisis, and raise extra funds vital for paying off the large budget deficit. A bank levy will come into force this year, along with raises to Corporation Tax."
Of course, such a spending review was not announced today, with much of what George Osbourne presented being more of a blanket cutting and taxing as opposed to targeting the rich or banking industry; but what if Osbourne had come up to the dispatch box today an announced that the rich were going to pay through the nose for the recession? What could be implemented to make those with more, pay more? What could we do to ensure that the banks will pay for the damage they caused, especially those which are now under public ownership? And most importantly, would it all work?
To start with, how much of the cuts and taxes will be directly affecting the better off, banks, and businesses? Osbourne announced today that the Bank Levy due to be implemented will become permanent, he expects it to raise around 2.5 billion pounds a year directly from the industry.A bank levy on such levels works out at around 0.06% of each bank's balance sheet over the 3 years, it will affect all major banks but not building societies or smaller banks. Foreign banks with UK operations will pay the levy from the business they do in the country. Numerically it seems a fair enough contribution, but there are two reasons why perhaps the banks have gotten off lightly and should have paid more. Firstly, they received a total of around 850 billion pounds, according to The Independent article citing the National Audit Office, in bailout funds during the recession. This creates a rather odd situation and some confusing maths; the taxpayer actually now owns much of Lloyds TSB and RBS, as well as having significant shares in other high street banks and their subsidies. The banks will be chipping in around 2.5 billion pounds to help reduce the deficit, when 850 billion was spent on them as part of said deficit. On top of this is the overall cost of the recession, which cannot even be pinned down past the immediate cost of what the Labour Government had to do; the maths does not really add up. Secondly, the taxpayer is seeing a rise of 2.5% on their spending from the VAT rise, and similar rises on state pensions contributions, meaning around 5% of their income is being taken from them to help pay for the deficit reduction scheme. The banks' contribution, as previously pointed out, works out at around 0.05%. Surely we should ask them to pay more? Surely we should set a levy at around 0.2% in order to get a fair contribution from the banks that cost us so much? Such a levy would increase the revenue for the treasury to around 10 billion pounds annually.
The idea is good, the taxpayer can now should less of a burden with the banks providing providing more money for the deficit reduction. Large businesses too could also be hit harder, Corporation tax could be raised on exceedingly high profits. Richer members of society could also extend a hand by paying a 60 or 70% top rate of income tax. The problem with a spending review of such a nature is thus; Osbourne pointed out that when making legislation and taxes for banks and large businesses, that the Government had to try and find a balance:
"We neither want to let banks off making their fair contribution, nor do we want to drive them abroad,"The point is a very important one; across the world countries are operating business favouring economies, so much so that large businesses and banks have operational branches right across the world. Capitalist countries world-wide are offering low corporation tax and business friendly structure in attempts to encourage MultiNational Companies to invest or base their operations in their economy. At any moment a British based company could move headquaters to another state and thus effectively end their tax contributions here. The same goes for banks and richer members of society; if you try to take enough money away from them, they will simply move out and shut up shop. Inward (foreign) Investment is vital for the service and financial based British economy, and if we tax banks and companies on ridiculous levels, the foreign based investors and owners will simply cease or limit operations here costing countless jobs and tax revenue.
As goes banks and their contribution however, consider this as a potential idea to increase fairness without demanding hefty sums from the banking industry. we could have a system where the 0.05% levy applies to all major banks, and a further levy of say 0.05% is charged equal to the proportion of shares of the bank which the public owns. For instance, Lloyds TSB's Balance Sheet from last year claims income of 46,972,000,000 pounds, an initial blanket levy of 0.05% will raise around 23 million pounds. The government has a 41% share in the bank, so a further levy of 0.05% on 41% of their income would raise a further 9.6 million pounds. The total contribution from Lloyds TSB will therefore be around 32.6 million pounds. The contribution is more, the sums reflect better the level of public ownership in the banks. An idea worth considering, perhaps.
In the end, as a nation we have a choice; do we ask for a numerically large but proportionally small contribution from banks and businesses in order to keep money coming in from them through the tax system, or do we raise taxes and levies to create a surge of tax revenue but run the risk of eventually getting little or no tax from those sources as they move abroad. As much as it pains my left-wing economic leanings to say, I think I prefer the former.
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Murdoch and the Power of the Media - A Critical Study
OPINION by Ben Mackay
Rupert Murdoch has developed semi-mythical status, an enigmatic figure with tentacles of influence extending all over the globe. He has immense power in Australia, the USA and of course Britain. Just a simple outline of the newspapers his company News International owns, reveals a staggering level of media control: the Sun, the News of the World, the Times and the Sunday Times. The Sun is the highest selling daily newspaper in the UK and the Times is the second highest selling broadsheet. Between these titles is 37% of newspaper circulation in the UK. He also owns 39.1% of BskyB, and hopes to take full control, meaning that he would dominate the pay-per-view TV market. Now this article is not arguing that there is anything wrong with owning national newspapers or even a business like BskyB, but there is something wrong when one man owns so much. The media has an influence over people and this can be used to damage both democracy and individual liberty. The media has the ability to shed light on truth and to fight for just causes but it can also be a weapon in manipulating mindsets, ruining reputations and spreading falsehoods.
It may be a truism, but the media is powerful. When it is put like that the sentence comes across as pointless, but in fact people underestimate how much they are swayed by what they read. We can appreciate that newspapers influence opinion, but often we forget how it influences our own minds. A newspaper can frame the way world is seen by allowing publication of some articles rather than others and also by the way it news events are described. The Sun – a supporter of the Conservatives – describes George Osborne’s plan to cut £83 billion pounds in public spending as “bold” and highlights how
Another problem is the control News International has over the governments of the day and the power his organisations hold over MP’s. There have been allegations that News International put pressure on MPs not to call the then Sun editor Rebekah Wade to be questioned over the News of the World phone hacking scandal. Adam Price, an MP on the select committee investigating the scandal, says thus;
It is clear that Murdoch and News International have too much power and influence. This can be seen not only in their ownership of a large proportion of news circulation, but also how this is used to push forward an agenda beneficial to News International. Furtherly when News International journalists have committed illegal and intrusive acts there are allegations that MPs were blocked from investigating this fully. All of this emphasises how there should be a limit on the number of publications owned by one company and there should be a thorough investigation into News of the World phone hacking scandal. Within a democratic nation we must be vigilant and prevent concentrations of power whether it is in Parliament, in the Civil Service, in big business or in trade unions, and also when it is in the media.
References:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/03/phone-hacking-scandal-andy-coulson
http://www.slate.com/id/2268073/
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/murdochs_threat_to_democracy.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/03/phone-hacking-scandal-andy-coulson
Rupert Murdoch has developed semi-mythical status, an enigmatic figure with tentacles of influence extending all over the globe. He has immense power in Australia, the USA and of course Britain. Just a simple outline of the newspapers his company News International owns, reveals a staggering level of media control: the Sun, the News of the World, the Times and the Sunday Times. The Sun is the highest selling daily newspaper in the UK and the Times is the second highest selling broadsheet. Between these titles is 37% of newspaper circulation in the UK. He also owns 39.1% of BskyB, and hopes to take full control, meaning that he would dominate the pay-per-view TV market. Now this article is not arguing that there is anything wrong with owning national newspapers or even a business like BskyB, but there is something wrong when one man owns so much. The media has an influence over people and this can be used to damage both democracy and individual liberty. The media has the ability to shed light on truth and to fight for just causes but it can also be a weapon in manipulating mindsets, ruining reputations and spreading falsehoods.
It may be a truism, but the media is powerful. When it is put like that the sentence comes across as pointless, but in fact people underestimate how much they are swayed by what they read. We can appreciate that newspapers influence opinion, but often we forget how it influences our own minds. A newspaper can frame the way world is seen by allowing publication of some articles rather than others and also by the way it news events are described. The Sun – a supporter of the Conservatives – describes George Osborne’s plan to cut £83 billion pounds in public spending as “bold” and highlights how
“Mr Osborne has made the intelligence services and their fight against terror one of his highest priorities.”Then in a childishly written paragraph:
“The Chancellor also unveiled a three-pronged new clampdown on benefit fraud, which costs £1.5billion a year under which EVERY false claim, no matter how minor, will mean an immediate £50 fine, WELFARE cheats caught for the third time will have their handouts stopped for as long as four years, as long as they don't have any dependents - and HIT SQUADS will target hotspots where work-shy fraudsters exploit the system.”The array of emphatic and emotive language like “three-pronged”, “clampdown” and “work-shy fraudsters” are interspersed with words in bold and in capitals. The Sun is drawing attention to what their readers would like to see, an attack on people who wrongly claim benefits. Only passing mention is made of how:
“some departments - including the Ministry of Justice - will see their money slashed by about 30 PER CENT”No mention is made of economists who are worried by Osborne’s moves. Now, the Sun is not the only newspaper that styles news coverage in an opinionated way, and it can be equally said that when newspapers like the Guardian are drawing attention to the dangers of public sector cuts, they are being equally biased. The problem is not so much bias, but that the bias contained within the Sun, the News of the World, the Times, the Sunday Times and Sky News are largely Murdoch’s bias. Murdoch’s own political views, which includes opposition to the EU, dislike of the BBC and support for business deregulation, are fed into his newspapers.In the 2010 General Election, Murdoch’s papers decided to switch support to the Conservatives, and coverage since the announcement involved countless attacks on Gordon Brown and the Labour government. When this bias is combined with a fierce determination to weaken the largely independent and impartial BBC, then we are in a position whereby one party has a lot of support in the media and it is very difficult to get at the facts or to avoid overt bias.
Another problem is the control News International has over the governments of the day and the power his organisations hold over MP’s. There have been allegations that News International put pressure on MPs not to call the then Sun editor Rebekah Wade to be questioned over the News of the World phone hacking scandal. Adam Price, an MP on the select committee investigating the scandal, says thus;
“I was told by a senior Conservative member of the committee, who I knew was in direct contact with executives at News International, that if we went for her, they would go for us – effectively that they would delve into our personal lives in order to punish them.”This is an astonishing claim and if true, pinpoints the incredible power of the media. Similarly, Labour MP Tom Watson said he was threatened when he called for Tony Blair to resign in 2006;
[was informed by ] “a very senior News International journalist… that Rebekah would never forgive me for what I did and that she would pursue me through parliament for the rest of my time as an MP".These two examples show that the media is becoming a force that has few checks – the body that is meant to be sovereign is being pushed away from doing it’s job, because it fears what the media can do.
It is clear that Murdoch and News International have too much power and influence. This can be seen not only in their ownership of a large proportion of news circulation, but also how this is used to push forward an agenda beneficial to News International. Furtherly when News International journalists have committed illegal and intrusive acts there are allegations that MPs were blocked from investigating this fully. All of this emphasises how there should be a limit on the number of publications owned by one company and there should be a thorough investigation into News of the World phone hacking scandal. Within a democratic nation we must be vigilant and prevent concentrations of power whether it is in Parliament, in the Civil Service, in big business or in trade unions, and also when it is in the media.
References:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/03/phone-hacking-scandal-andy-coulson
http://www.slate.com/id/2268073/
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/murdochs_threat_to_democracy.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/03/phone-hacking-scandal-andy-coulson
Tuesday, 12 October 2010
THINK TANK: Ed Miliband's Labour Party
by The Comment Think Tank
Ed Miliband has re-shuffled the Labour Cabinet, made his opening pitches to the electorate as the new leader, and high-profile members from the old regime have stepped down from the firing line. What of it? THINK TANK has put together an in depth analysis into exactly who the Cabinet really are, what Ed Miliband has been saying, and the implications of various career moves that the old guard of New Labour have taken for the future of the party. Some of it has already been explored in previous articles, but for a full analysis into what we have learnt so far since Ed Miliband's appointment and what we can expect from the party in the near future, this is your one stop shop. To assist, the BBC's rather wonderful transcript and video article of the conference are at hand, as is their article on the composition of Miliband's first cabinet, respectively;
Upon Ed Miliband's victory, THINK TANK premised two different routes that the Labour party could swing down which would keep most of the party in support, and keep the party realistically electable within the boundaries mainstream British politics;
Premise One: Miliband could tighten his relationship with the Unions, give a large portion of top cabinet jobs to left wing thinkers, and present the party to the electorate as a new, pragmatic and respectable, left wing force in politics, just in time for everyone kicking and screaming for benefits and welfare after the Lib-Tory axe slices public spending.
Premise Two: Miliband could hand top jobs to Brown's (and therefore his) old allies and re-brand what some labelled 'Brownite' Labour Policy as his own, with a few personal touches of course. As a key member of Brown's policy unit, Miliband must certainly have a few soft spots for Brownite policy, and for the vision for the party that Brown had.
As such, this analysis is based on categorising every development thus far in Miliband and the Labour Party's recent moves into either one of these categories, according to which one most suits as an ideological explanation for said move.
We begin with his first speech as leader at the Labour Party Conference in Manchester on 28th September. This was really his first public appearance since the leadership race concluded in the same week. His opening line was thus:
"Conference, I stand here today ready to lead: a new generation now leading Labour."Score one for 'premise one' from a blatant and open swiping away of what had gone before; not just a new generation, but now belonging to 'Labour', note a distinct lack of the word 'new' just before. Surely then, we could bet a mortgage or two on the rest of the speech being a wash out of New Labour, to introduce 'Ed Labour' onto the party. More of the same came;
"We must not blame the electorate for ending up with a government we don't like, we should blame ourselves.We have to understand why people felt they couldn't support us."
"This country faces some tough choices. And so do we. And we need to change.
You remember. We began as restless and radical. Remember the spirit of 1997, but by the end of our time in office we had lost our way."
Gordon Brown and Tony Blair must have been turning in their political graves, doubling the 'premise one' score. However, as we read on, suddenly, Ed Miliband switches from trying to create a new image for him and the party, to systematically running through a lengthy list of New Labour Policy and defending it. The list included: de-regulating the banks and businesses, the changing of Clause 4, and the criminal policy of Brown and Blair. Some of New Labour's most controversial and right wing moves were now apparently being endorsed and defended by the candidate whom all claimed was the 'left wing option' from the front-runners. Score one for 'premise two'.
This apparent swing towards New Labour didn't stop there; even when criticising some of what New Labour did, his language was not very convincing of a man trying to create his own, fresh, Labour party. What we noticed has been highlighted below within the transcript of his speech:
"too often we seemed casual about them.Like the idea of locking someone away for 90 days - nearly three months in prison - without charging them with a crime."
"You saw the worst financial crisis in a generation, and I understand your anger that Labour hadn't changed the old ways in the City of deregulation.""And I understand also that the promise of new politics of 1997 came to look incredibly hollow after the scandal of MPs' expenses. And we came to look like a new establishment in the company we kept, the style of our politics and our remoteness from people."
The fact of the matter is, that there is absolutely no conviction in what Ed Miliband said when he spoke of what many regard as New Labour mistakes. He 'understands', he does not 'agree'. It 'seemed', he does not believe that they 'in fact were'. They 'came to look like', but he feels that in fact they were not. He addressed the flaws that disillusioned voters pointed to as if they were minor concerns that somehow accumulated to create a loss of 5 million votes for the party since Blair first ran in 1997. At least he seemed to make a move away from the New Labour approach of "if you don't like it or agree with it, you're wrong", and towards a more considerate, listening government that he proposes in the rest of his speech. However, there is no open condemnation of any of New Labour's track record, particularly the Brown legacy, throughout the entire speech. Tick the 'premise two' column again.
However, this is with one, quite significant, exception. The Iraq War. Although in the same section defending to the teeth other areas of New Labour's foreign policy such as the 'special relationship' with the USA, Miliband here casts a shunning blow onto the reputations of Brown and Blair:
"But I do believe that we were wrong. Wrong to take Britain to war and we need to be honest about that.
Wrong because that war was not a last resort, because we did not build sufficient alliances and because we undermined the United Nations."
A sudden change in his previously wishy-washy and unsure language, chalk one up for 'premise one'; Miliband here finally calls time on the Labour Party's defence of a war that's legality is still disputed. Whether the rest of his party agree or not, this is now likely to be the view of the Labour front bench and key players, as they look to 'please the boss'. Overall, the speech seems to be, rather confused. From what may be inferred, Miliband 'understands' why voters abandoned the party and wants to make a fresh Labour party in his own ideological image, but he 'seemed' to then go on to defend most of New Labour's legacy, and present little alternative or his own views when citing mistakes made.
With the speech fully picked apart, we move on to the general persona of Ed Miliband, in particular, his relationship with the Unions that make up the Labour Party. So labelled, 'Red Ed' by the media and the coalition, Ed Miliband could have moved two ways with this in his continued self portrayal; he could have championed it, presented himself as an indeed more left wing candidate in readiness for the coming cries for welfare and benefits in the 'post cut period', or he could have dismissed it as rubbish in a bid to present himself clearly as his own man with his own agenda.
Almost instantly, Miliband came out and rubbished claims that he was somehow 'left wing' or that he was under the thumb of the Unions. He made it clear that he was his own man, with his own agenda, not to be led by anyone. His own agenda maybe, but by rejecting any 'leftite' tendencies, what room did that leave him on the Labour Party political spectrum; argue as you will the possibility of him going further left than supporting the Unions by somehow becoming Communist, the only plausible direction is right, back towards Blair and Brown. Another cross in the 'premise two' box.
Most recently, Ed Miliband picked his top team in his Cabinet post selections. Although the Labour Party voted as a whole to select the shadow cabinet members, it was directly up to Ed Miliband to select the successful applicant's positions within the shadow cabinet. The list below is a collection of what are considered the 'top jobs' and of these, those who held cabinet posts in Brown's cabinet are highlighted:
Interesting, and perhaps we can aid our look at just how Brownite Miliband might be feeling by noting who else from Gordon Brown's inner circle he has kept around his own cabinet table. Hilary Benn was an ally of Brown throughout his premiership, and also supported Ed Miliband in the leadership campaign, he gets the Shadow Leader of the House spot. Tessa Jowell has been appointed to shadow the developments in the progress of the run-up to the Olympic games in 2012. She is a true stalwart of New Labour, who served as a minister to both Blair and Brown.
Almost instantly, Miliband came out and rubbished claims that he was somehow 'left wing' or that he was under the thumb of the Unions. He made it clear that he was his own man, with his own agenda, not to be led by anyone. His own agenda maybe, but by rejecting any 'leftite' tendencies, what room did that leave him on the Labour Party political spectrum; argue as you will the possibility of him going further left than supporting the Unions by somehow becoming Communist, the only plausible direction is right, back towards Blair and Brown. Another cross in the 'premise two' box.
Most recently, Ed Miliband picked his top team in his Cabinet post selections. Although the Labour Party voted as a whole to select the shadow cabinet members, it was directly up to Ed Miliband to select the successful applicant's positions within the shadow cabinet. The list below is a collection of what are considered the 'top jobs' and of these, those who held cabinet posts in Brown's cabinet are highlighted:
Shadow Chancellor - Alan Johnson
Shadow Home Secretary - Ed Balls
Shadow Foreign Secretary - Yvette Cooper
Shadow Deputy Prime Minister and International Development Secretary - Harriet Harman
Shadow Education Secretary - Andy Burnham
Shadow Health Secretary - John Healey
Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary - Douglas Alexander
Brown's legacy in Miliband's first cabinet is much, much stronger than Blair's was in Brown's first. Could this be because Miliband is banking on the experience of Johnson and the effectiveness of Ed Balls in uncertain times, or is he simply keeping like-minded ex-Brownites around him to help pursue a similar direction to that which Brown left them? Either way, to qualify for a shout up to the 'premise one' scorekeeper, Miliband would have to have appointed more Labour Party members like Andy Burnham, a clear break from New Labour, to top posts. Another 'premise two' move so it would seem.
What precisely then is Ed Miliband's thinking and direction? There is no clear winner on our scorecards, we have tallied up points for both the "New Labour" and the "N'Ed Labour" sides, and a fair few of the goings on could be taken either way, depending on personal bias or differing viewpoints on the context in which Ed Miliband finds himself.
More has been linked from the analysis to 'premise two', suggesting that Miliband is favouring keeping away from the days of the 'loony left' and following more of a variation of what New Labour had already started. However, he blatantly did not agree with everything that Brown and Blair did, particularly Iraq, but at the same time refuses, even now, to openly and fully criticise specific policy which has gone before, even when so much of it was the cause of the mass desertion of floating voters from the party over the past 13 years. That aside, Miliband is desperately trying to make clear to the masses that he is his own man, his rather surprise appointment of Alan Johnson to the Shadow Chancellor job over the heads of Balls and Cooper demonstrates this nicely. Perhaps indeed he is following a very clear path in his mind, he certainly has an aura of a man following a dream about him, but THINK TANK believes it's a lot closer to Brown's vision and direction than many realise.
Monday, 11 October 2010
The First Test of the Coalition - University 'F(r)ee For All'
ANALYSIS by Sam Naegus
The relationship between the two government parties, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats was put under new strain today after it was leaked that the Browne report on reforming higher education has recommended that the cap on tuition fees (currently £3,290) should be lifted and British Universities should let the markets govern the level of tuition fees. The two parties have sworn governmental allegence and promised to compromise with each other in all areas possible, but with the budget defecit firmly in mind, it seems the Conservative party are asking the Lib Dems for a complete 'bow-to-the-will". Is it workable, or is this crack in the sufarce fastly turning into the first faultline across planet Lib-Tory?
The prospect of unlimited fees has proved to be a great dilemma for many Lib Dem MPs who have signed a pledge, both before and after May’s election that they would oppose an increase in fees at university, and if the cap is raised, it would have a hugely detrimental effect on Clegg’s parties’ reputation as the student party: and it is certainly true that many students who voted for the party in May would willingly abandon the Lib Dems if they fail to prevent a reform on higher education fees.
In a move that many political commentators believe to be one of a party under immense pressure and nerves, the party hierarchy has refused to comment, or allow MPs to speak to the press until they have been briefed by Vince Cable, the Business Secretary.
Higher education reform has been hotly debated in the last couple of weeks, and these new proposals come just days after Cable ruled out a pure graduate tax on the basis that it was simply unfair. There seems to be consensus among the Conservative Party as well: the Prime Minister stating that “a graduate tax pure and simple doesn’t work, it will actually raise the budget deficit”.
It would only be certain places that would be able to set their own fees: the elite ‘Russell Group’ of the top twenty research intensive Universities, where places are extremely competitive, are keen to be able to set their own fees, which could have a damning effect on the most academically able pupils seeking entrance to establishments such as The University of Sheffield, where there are over eight applications per place.
Whilst such competitive Universities might relish the prospect of setting their own fees, it certainly needs to be taken into consideration that many Universities would struggle to cover the costs of courses if high education spending was cut amidst far reaching reforms which aim to improve the huge budget deficit.
Newly elected Labour Leader, Ed Miliband, has reiterated his support for the replacement of tuition fees with a graduate tax, and has even attempted to provoke a Lib Dem rebellion by promising to work with progressive MPs to prevent a major raise in tuition fees.
The Think Tank, Policy Exchange, who have worked closely with the government are aware that low earners will be entirely unaffected by a reform in the repayment of student loans, some element of fairness that the Lib Dems may cling to. However, they have also recommended that the top graduate earners make extra repayments, thus they would end up paying around 120% of their original loan, something that many see as unfair, and yet another way of punishing high achievers.
If the two coalition parties fail to resolve their differing ideologies on such an issue, it can cause great resentment and also affect the long-term relationship between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems. On one hand, the Conservatives are keen to claw back the budget deficit left to them by the out-going Labour government and are pushing the agenda hard, whilst the Lib Dems must decide whether it is within themselves to compromise on raising fees, something that they have long campaigned and lobbied against. This issue will certainly be one of the first major tests of strength and will on the government. Considering it would appear the parties are glued together until 2015, it might be in their best interests to find a workable solution, and fast.
The relationship between the two government parties, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats was put under new strain today after it was leaked that the Browne report on reforming higher education has recommended that the cap on tuition fees (currently £3,290) should be lifted and British Universities should let the markets govern the level of tuition fees. The two parties have sworn governmental allegence and promised to compromise with each other in all areas possible, but with the budget defecit firmly in mind, it seems the Conservative party are asking the Lib Dems for a complete 'bow-to-the-will". Is it workable, or is this crack in the sufarce fastly turning into the first faultline across planet Lib-Tory?
The prospect of unlimited fees has proved to be a great dilemma for many Lib Dem MPs who have signed a pledge, both before and after May’s election that they would oppose an increase in fees at university, and if the cap is raised, it would have a hugely detrimental effect on Clegg’s parties’ reputation as the student party: and it is certainly true that many students who voted for the party in May would willingly abandon the Lib Dems if they fail to prevent a reform on higher education fees.
In a move that many political commentators believe to be one of a party under immense pressure and nerves, the party hierarchy has refused to comment, or allow MPs to speak to the press until they have been briefed by Vince Cable, the Business Secretary.
Higher education reform has been hotly debated in the last couple of weeks, and these new proposals come just days after Cable ruled out a pure graduate tax on the basis that it was simply unfair. There seems to be consensus among the Conservative Party as well: the Prime Minister stating that “a graduate tax pure and simple doesn’t work, it will actually raise the budget deficit”.
It would only be certain places that would be able to set their own fees: the elite ‘Russell Group’ of the top twenty research intensive Universities, where places are extremely competitive, are keen to be able to set their own fees, which could have a damning effect on the most academically able pupils seeking entrance to establishments such as The University of Sheffield, where there are over eight applications per place.
Whilst such competitive Universities might relish the prospect of setting their own fees, it certainly needs to be taken into consideration that many Universities would struggle to cover the costs of courses if high education spending was cut amidst far reaching reforms which aim to improve the huge budget deficit.
Newly elected Labour Leader, Ed Miliband, has reiterated his support for the replacement of tuition fees with a graduate tax, and has even attempted to provoke a Lib Dem rebellion by promising to work with progressive MPs to prevent a major raise in tuition fees.
The Think Tank, Policy Exchange, who have worked closely with the government are aware that low earners will be entirely unaffected by a reform in the repayment of student loans, some element of fairness that the Lib Dems may cling to. However, they have also recommended that the top graduate earners make extra repayments, thus they would end up paying around 120% of their original loan, something that many see as unfair, and yet another way of punishing high achievers.
If the two coalition parties fail to resolve their differing ideologies on such an issue, it can cause great resentment and also affect the long-term relationship between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems. On one hand, the Conservatives are keen to claw back the budget deficit left to them by the out-going Labour government and are pushing the agenda hard, whilst the Lib Dems must decide whether it is within themselves to compromise on raising fees, something that they have long campaigned and lobbied against. This issue will certainly be one of the first major tests of strength and will on the government. Considering it would appear the parties are glued together until 2015, it might be in their best interests to find a workable solution, and fast.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)