Prime Minister's Questions - 11th September

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

The second Prime Minister’s Question Time after the Summer Recess, held on the twelfth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centers, began with Cameron and Miliband paying tribute to the families and friends of those who died in the attacks. The Tory leader promised to prepare a plan for the Syrian situation in time for the UN General Assembly, with particular focus on ensuring that there is access to the country for humanitarian aid. Cameron and Miliband welcomed figures that overall unemployment levels had fallen, and that private sector jobs had risen to 1.4million. Miliband accused the Tories of ‘total complacency’ with the handling of the deficit, criticising the Government for the slowest recovery in 100 years where prices have risen faster than wages.

Miliband asked the Prime Minister whether he agreed with the Education Secretary, Michael Gove’s, comments that those who used foodbanks ‘only had themselves to blame’. Cameron refused to back or distance himself from these comments, instead retorting with his own criticism on Miliband’s speech at the Trade Union Congress conference yesterday, claiming that it was a ‘disgrace’ that he had caved into trade unions.

There was considerable back and forth between the two major parties on the topic of youth unemployment with Labour attacking the Government for the continual rise of unemployment for the country overall whereas the Tories commended the Government for a fall in unemployment levels in their particular constituencies.

However, Miliband did not bring up today’s report from the UN on the effects of the bedroom tax, suggesting distrust with the accuracy and reliability of the report.

Prime Minister’s Question Times now stop for a few more weeks whilst we turn our attention to party conference season, starting with the Liberal Democrat and Green Party conferences this weekend.

The UK wants to stay away from bombs, not give 'succour' to Assad

Photo by Steve Rhodes 

The Government's defeat in the House of Commons over taking military action in Syria demonstrates a rare circumstance where the public are listened to by the MPs and widespread unwillingness to create another situation we are still overseeing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, as another day begins since the use of chemical weapons, allegedly by Assad, the propaganda war will begin and we will be told that we have failed the Syrian people by voting against; the UK Government will denounce its citizens as misinformed, misguided and attack anti-war MPs for their ill thought-out and 'despicable' (as Michael Gove shouted) choices. But this is not the case.

By voting no to military action yesterday, that is all MPs, representing us, have done. With public support for military intervention sitting at figures between 8 and 12 percent, depending on your source, the case for it was always going to be undermined. And that is because people recognised the failings of the Iraq and Afghanistan war: the massive loss of lives; the lies told by the Government; and, the failure for the conflicts to end after over a decade. In addition, the increased prevalence of whistleblowers, such as Wikileaks and Chelsea Manning, have raised the profile of the war crimes and terrible consequences of Western military intervention. Many now have the opinion that using bombs as a way of ending a conflict only makes the situation worse. Perhaps, the deep misunderstanding of the way to end a conflict has caused deep resentment by groups in the Middle-East and hence given way to the increased membership of terrorist organisations such as Al-Qaeda. I am in no way condoning the activities such organisations partake in, but I can see a possible motivation; you wrecked our country with your imperialist use of your military muscle, we'll do what we can to show you how reckless you have been. 

It is for these reasons that people oppose military intervention in Syria. The motion presented to the House yesterday, including the amendment, did not present us with the dichotomy that we are told we were presented with. It was not so simple as black and white that it was either bomb Syria or sit back and watch Syria bomb itself. The third option, ignored by the motions and the amendments, although recognised by many members of the house in their speeches, and unsuccessfully proposed as an amendment by Green MP Caroline Lucas, was that we used more peaceful, negotiating tactics, based on humanitarian aid and diplomacy to end the conflict. A far less bloody solution than was proposed by the leaders of the three main parties in the house. It was this view that was ever-dominant throughout the debate yet, ironically, no-one was given the choice to vote for it. The closest that MPs could get to voting for peaceful action, was to vote against the motion and the amendment, which called for military action.

Hence, the opinions that we are presented with today, that we have 'let the people of Syria down', we have 'ruled out any action' and that we have somehow given 'succour' to Assad completely disregard this third option. It is unfortunate that we live in a world where the two most powerful nation's leaders are bloodthirsty, hotheaded and quick to hit the launch button. At least, with some stroke of luck, a majority of thirteen members of the House swung the vote in the way of sense.

The Vote Today Presents Us With a False Dichotomy

 Video provided by the BBC

Today's recall of parliament reveals Cameron and Obama's deep want for imminent attacks in Syria, in response to the alleged use of chemical attacks by the Assad regime on its citizens in recent times. However, the debate uses a false dichotomy, presenting the options of military intervention or to sit back and watch as black and white. These are not in fact the only options available to us as a country and there are further choices we can make to act in a moral manner.

Cameron used a speech which he did not intend to use and, as such, his rhetoric seemed forceful, defensive and led by his own briefing. His body behaviour, too, demonstrated a deep desire to come across as in charge of the debate, as his decisions were undermined by his own party members, other members of the house and public opinion. Deafening his ears to criticism that he brought the house back for a pointless debate, Cameron set out his argument for the motion and military intervention, citing the Joint Intelligence Committee's report that it was 'highly likely' that the Assad regime were those responsible for the attack. However, he had to concede that this motion was based on a judgement, not evidence, and therefore that there was no 100% certainty about it. He dodged questions asking how an attack on Syria would actually deter a dictator, who has already showed a lack of shame and worry, from continuing to use chemical weapons. Driven by the legacy of the Iraq War, Cameron refuted any claim that an attack in Syria would be similar, saying there would be no troops on the ground, and no attempt at regime change. As members around the house quizzed him on his statement, Cameron maintained his claim that 'if nothing is done, we're more likely to see chemical weapons used' and, strangely, argued that there was no need to look at evidence throughout.

Cameron thumping the desk rather too audibly. #Syria

— Politically Me (@Politically_Me_) August 29, 2013

Cameron's speech was seen widely as relatively weak and as reluctantly sticking to a brief, with many speculating that there was still a want to launch an attack soon. What was clear from Cameron's speech, though, was that he was certain that the conclusions of the JIC and the US were enough to launch a unilateral intervention without the approval of the UN Security Council.

Cameron Syria speech in summary - This is a judgement. Will Assad be more or less likely to use chemical weapons if we take no action?

— Nick Robinson (@bbcnickrobinson) August 29, 2013

Terrible speech from Cameron - no answers on how to avoid escalation, no answers on breaking international law, no case made

— Caroline Lucas (@CarolineLucas) August 29, 2013

Miliband presented a far more heartfelt, solemn and emotional response to the motion as he tabled Labour's amendment, which included a requirement to hear the results of the UN tests, and that there be compelling evidence for the case. Despite a difficult staff, Miliband commanded a well-thought-out speech, but still presented one side of the dichotomy, refusing the idea that anything other than military intervention is viable, simply stating that we needed to be 'clear-eyed' before heading into war. Labour are not ruling out military intervention. Although he demonstrated far greater understanding of the real priority of such an intervention, Miliband failed to take notice of the fact that a diplomatic peace-keeping solution poses far less risks to life than military intervention of any sort. What did ring true though is that Miliband seemed more in touch with the Conservative Party than Cameron was, demonstrating the deep dissatisfaction from Tory MPs with Cameron's original war intentions.

Wow a hell of a lot of conservative back bench MPs are in agreement with what @Ed_Miliband is saying on #Syria. Cameron looking lonely.

— Phillip Jones (@Phillip_D_Jones) August 29, 2013

'Evidence should precede decision, not decision precede evidence' proclaimed Miliband to choruses of support, over some members complaining about the delay in response. Any response should be time-limited, have clear objectives and a legal course and for that the UN should not be seen as simply as an inconvenience, he stated. Yet, Miliband's speech, despite proving better than Cameron's, seemed just a bid to follow the appropriate course, and avoid a repeat of the Iraq war. The cynics among us will argue that this is a result of wanting distance from Blair and Iraq or wanting to shine on the good side of the argument, playing to his party's and the population's concerns. But a hidden message was made apparent; even if the UN Security Council do not approve military action, the Labour party would be prepared to commit to it anyway.

It comes of no surprise that Nick Clegg did not make a statement, but his party members were particularly vocal, with many sympathetic to Labour's amendment, or the amendment, not discussed, tabled by Caroline Lucas, detailed below.

George Galloway, ex-Labour, now Respect, and anti-war campaigner, spoke passionately against supporting either side of the war, referencing the video uploaded by the Free Syrian Army of a commander eating a man's heart, and the war crimes of the Assad regime. He continued by arguing against ordering our army to war, claiming that only 11% of the population agreed with such a decision. Shouting at the house, Galloway seemed to oppose almost anything stated yet seemingly proposing no solutions.

George Galloway: 'Can ever a British government have imagined sending its men and women to war with support of just 11% in public opinion?'

— James Chapman (Mail) (@jameschappers) August 29, 2013

Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, tapped into perhaps what is being felt by the majority of citizens across the country as she noted that military intervention is not the best way forward for either the Syrian citizens at the centre of the violence, or the citizens of the UK. She noted that the original motion put to the House by the Prime Minister had changed due to the demands of other MPs and the citizens of the country. Lucas also stressed that any military intervention must require any sanctioning by the UN Security Council, even with the Labour amendment, and that this is simply seen as an inconvenience rather than a due course of justice. She declared that the summary of the legal advice granted to MPs was unacceptable and that members should be given more. She stated that she remained to be convinced that any military action would deter rather than escalate the horrors within the country, questioning what we would do if Assad retaliated to our attacks rather than back down. She argued that only a diplomatic solution would address the situation - unfortunately, her own amendment will not be given any time to be discussed today and thus, members of the house are given only black and white options. Members are 'misguided' when they state that not intervening with our military, ignoring the case that can be made using diplomacy and humanitarian aid.

What seemed to overarch the debate was the question of 'Why now?' as MPs wondered why the use of chemical weapons should cause an escalation of our response, when the deaths of over 100,000 did not. Surely, one death is as equal as another death. Furthermore, there was detailed concern regarding the response of the Syrian regime, and the further implications of any attack by Western nations. Indeed, a BBC correspondent has tweeted images of Israel handing out gas marks as they prepare for the potential of Syria retaliating to an attack by Western nations by using weapons in Israel.

Stocking up on gas masks in #Israel. Big queue in Tel Aviv distribution centre. Concern but no panic pic.twitter.com/OVE2NlDEo5

— Richard Galpin (@Richardgalpin) August 29, 2013

It is extremely pleasing to see that MPs voted, twice, against any step towards military intervention. Many MPs, during the debate, recognised the third option that is an increased attempt at diplomacy, humanitarian aid and forcing the two sides apart peacefully to find a solution. Unfortunately, the result in the Commons means there will be no action of that sort either, but we can at least relish in the fact we have not started another conflict which results in the deaths of many innocent people, and the potential for wider conflict across the world.

We must now seek the third option of peaceful diplomacy, stop angering the Arab world and reduce our reliance on the Western might. We must also hope that the US do not take the unilateral route they have announced they are considering today.

I wrote to my local MP to detail my concerns around the vote today, the text of which can be read below:

Dear MP,

I am writing to you as a constituent with deep concern regarding the possible military intervention of the UK and other parts of the western world in the Syria crisis and I am hoping that you will listen and take my concerns into account when placing your vote in Parliament this Thursday.

Although I agree that the Syrian crisis is an incredibly appalling situation and that there is a strong case for intervention of some sort, I believe that military intervention is a dangerous path to head down. Learning from the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan, we must note that these conflicts have not yet ended, people continue to die each day and deep resentment of the Western world has come about as a result of these confrontations.

Furthermore, with hundreds dying each day in Syria, the case for intervention should be centred around their suffering rather than the might of the West. If we are to bombard the country with bombs and cruise missiles, we must ensure that they are only used against targets which sustain the country’s military capabilities - no citizens should be killed in the process. We must also provide on-the-ground humanitarian aid to victims of the violence on both sides and seek to reunite displaced children in the country and those who have fled - this should be our highest priority.

However, it is also incredibly important that satisfactory evidence is reached to ascertain that the use of chemical weapons was under the instruction of the Assad regime and that a multilateral agreement is reached with the UN or NATO before we commit to any military intervention. In the meantime, we should act to ensure that those injured are given proper treatment and attempt to implement a ceasefire.

My preferred outcome of the debate on Thursday is for the UK and other western nations to act as peacekeepers, working with either side of the conflict to reach a diplomatic situation, allowing for no more bloodshed and, hopefully, a consensual agreement that can lead to a better situation for all those involved. Most importantly, it will allow the absolutely necessary humanitarian aid to be granted and for displaced children and adults to return to their war stricken country and find their loved ones.

Too many have died in this conflict, and the UK should not oversee or be the cause of any further deaths.

I do hope this message reaches you before the vote and that you take my concerns into account.

This article is a work in progress and will be updated as further developments are made.

Caroline Lucas – the MP arrested for doing her job

 Photo by No Dash For Gas

Today’s arrest of Caroline Lucas at Balcombe is more than just a display of ideological commitment, but of deep understanding of her role as MP for Brighton Pavilion, and the sole Green Party representative in the House of Commons.

A Member of Parliament (MP), as I’m sure you are aware, is elected to their role to fulfil the responsibility of representing their constituents on matters in and out of parliament. With 650 MPs to represent over 60 million people, this can be an exceptionally difficult feat, with an ideologically diverse community lobbying their ideologically committed representative. Unless you begin to treat ideologically different citizens like separate species, with communists in Zone A and ultra-capitalists in Zone Z, it’s unlikely that any MP will ever to be able to effectively represent their entire constituency. And even if you did adopt this deeply despicable policy, good luck trying to send those who have features from both Zone G and Zone P. It is for this reason that it is an extremely likely occurrence for constituents to write to other MPs to express their views. Unfortunately for them, the law prevents MPs representing non-constituents.

Hence, Caroline Lucas’s job is one of real difficulty. As the sole Green Party representative in the House of Commons, Caroline has faced head-on the task of representing her own interests and her constituency’s interests in parliament whilst having to, essentially, ignore the floods of correspondence she receives from other Green Party members, environmentalists and ideologically aligned people around the country. It is events like today, in Balcombe, that she is able to properly represent those who have contacted her over and over again with their opposition to fracking, Cuadrilla and the Government’s poor attempt at being the ‘Greenest’ ever.

Caroline should serve as an inspiration to all of us and a role model for other members of the House. As an MP who does her job, of representing her constituents, rather than giving in to the party whip, defined by the party donors, she remains one of few who really holds the government to account. The pictures of Caroline being dragged away from the protest by police, whilst doing her job, show her standing with dignity, accepting her fate and believing in her cause.

What is ludicrous is the utter hypocrisy of our political state, where the companies set out to destroy our environment in the name of keeping the lights on, are protected from those who present a risk of “damaging property”. The MP who represents her constituents and other likeminded citizens in an attempt to make society better is arrested while those sitting on the benches in the Houses around her are ignored while they avoid tax and accept bribery. Caroline Lucas’ arrest today is an eye-opener to the backwards nature of policing tactics – the big, greedy and powerful are protected, whilst the small do-gooders of society are punished.

Congratulations to Caroline Lucas, her son, and the many people who have taken part in protests today, standing up for what they believe in and uniting against the Government’s ignorant plans.

Also published on Redbrick

Cameron Demands Complacency on Fracking

Photograph by Push Europe

"Get behind fracking" demands David Cameron in The Telegraph today. Think of the benefits to the economy, he lays on. Ignore the environmental impact, he infers. As anti-fracking protests continue strong in Balcombe, Sussex, the Tory Prime Minister adds yet another controversy to his premiership's legacy, so what substance lies behind his words?

The pro-fracking alliance of Caudrilla and The Conservative Party announce the godsends of the new energy initiative at any hint of disapproval: cheap energy, self-sufficiency and enough jobs to provide for the unemployed and the millions of illegal immigrants popping out of the sewage system. Meant to be a bit of good news, the Nasty Party must be in disarray that their distraction from their widespread attacks has only added fuel to the fire. Rather than prompting street parties and celebrations akin to those on New Year's Day, simply the possibility of fracking has resulted in angry gatherings. 

The potential of fracking is vastly outweighed by its potential to wreck the environment. Carving up the countryside, destroying habitats and contaminating water, it's hardly going to be Beautiful Britain. 1,300 trillion cubic feet of gas doesn't exactly suggest a short-scale and isolated project; if David Cameron's partners manage to find shale gas, which is a certainty, there's no doubt that they'll continue to exploring elsewhere in the country. It really should come as no surprise that fracking is being favoured over other options when one of Cameron's advisors, Lord Browne, is the chief executive of Caudrilla. The big black bags of money that the Government are saying will drop into the Treasury or the local public's back pockets are empty promises. If anything is reinvested into the economy, it will be minimal. We only have to look at the 'Big Six' to recognise this; despite their massive profits this year, they still have the cheek to demand more money from their customers. Here is where Cameron's promise of cheaper energy can be called into question.

The latter two promises, self-sufficiency and jobs, also raise eyebrows. Although it may be the case that fracking can provide them both, they are not the sole approaches that can offer, and they are far more the cleanest. Fracking is a dirty process, and presents the highly likely chance of water contamination in the local area. Add the certainty of increased traffic from unclean lorries through the local area, and the noise created during the process, and it the pollution is an abysmal thought. Furthermore, climate change is a real concern in the present day and as we continue to rely on finite and dirty resources to power society, we are forgetting the long-term problems and solely thinking of the short-term benefits. It has been predicted that 60-80% of resources in the ground must not be extracted if we are to avoid any of the catastrophic results of climate change. In contrast, there are various green energies that can be invested in for all the same benefits. Additional money placed towards procuring energy-efficient homes and building technologies to catch renewable energies is far more sustainable and financially viable. The jobs created by implementing a shale-gas service are equally required for a large-scale investment project in sustainable and clean resources, that will not just benefit us, but generations to come and have far more public support than dirty fracking.

The language used by the pro-fracking alliance is misleading and ignorant of alternatives and public opinion. Despite widespread opposition, the technology, which is in its infancy, is being favoured over far more sustainable technologies, which can provide the very same benefits. There is enough shale gas to keep us powered for decades, they say. But there is enough sun, water, wind and heat to keep us powered indefinitely.

Also posted on Redbrick.

Prime Minister's Questions - 19th June

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

After a busy week at the G8 summit, David Cameron returned the House of Commons for his weekly scrutiny session, beginning with an announcement that the Chief Executive of BT, Ian Livingstone, would be joining the Government as the trade minister towards the end of the year. Ed Miliband immediately questioned the Prime Minister on whether the Government would be making amendments to the banking bill, based on the parliamentary commission on banking’s report, stating that Labour would be submitting them if the Government didn’t. However, consensus between the parties was found on this point. Miliband attacked the Government on the news that many in the banking sector received a bonus in April that was 64% higher than in the previous year, stating that it was the result of Cameron’s lowering of the highest rate of tax. Cameron failed to defend himself, instead retorting that the Labour party did not manage to sort the problem out themselves during their thirteen years in government. The rise in child poverty was also a dominant topic, with many Labour MPs attacking the Government’s policies that have caused this increase – all David Cameron could do was say that it was Labour’s fault, because they got the country into the economic crisis. Caroline Lucas asked the Prime Minister whether he would agree with her that The Sun newspaper should be removed from sale in the house, due to the link between the portrayal of women as sex objects in the media and the acceptance of sexual harassment. The Prime Minister laughed the question off, stating he was glad that she got her question asked after her “dazzling t-shirt”, but that he believes all newspapers should be available for sale in the house, disgustingly shrugging off the blatant sexism that The Sun prints.

Stop the Badger Cull

 Image by The Green Party

 

The badger cull pilot project is set to begin in the UK shortly, trialling in the south-western counties of Gloucestershire and Somerset despite many calls for its cancellation. It disheartens me that the hard work of The Green Party, the RSPCA and high-street store, Lush, have been ignored by the Government. What we are seeing now, according to the BBC, is the massacre of 5094 innocent creatures by February next year. 

People will proclaim that the badgers aren’t innocent because they have spread TB to cattle across the country and cost farmers and the nation massive amounts of money, but this is to neglect the fact that these creatures are none the wiser. We, as humans, are lucky to possess the intelligence that we have – we can stop the spread of diseases and viruses using our mental capacities – but, unfortunately, badgers don’t have this same awareness. So, to treat them like they do and hold them as “guilty” of carrying TB and ruining livestock across the country is preposterous. 

It would be outrageous if we were to wipe out the entire population that carry HIV, so why should we do the same to badgers? There are other ways of tackling the problem, and these have been tried and tested. So, they cost more and harder to administer, but should these creatures pay the price for our laziness and ignorance? No. Besides, leading scientists (including the Government’s chief scientist) have argued that there is no real evidence to justify the slaughter, yet the activity goes ahead. 

In October 2012, the House of Commons voted against the proposed cull but this non-binding result from the house was only greeted with a slight postponement by the Government. Acting against the wishes of the House’s members and, indeed, the population, we are seeing an act of downright betrayal from those who are meant to represent us. 

A campaign has been launched by Lush, the high-street cosmetics shop, against the cull, gathering support from customers and passers-by across the country, via organised flash mobs as in the video below. But, we have seen that, time and time again, the Government just does not listen; despite how hard the campaign is fought, and the damning evidence, unless it’s the right people pushing the buttons, it’s hard to get your voice heard. 

Unfortunately, it is already too late to save some, but it is not yet too late to put pressure on the Government. Join me and many others in saying no to the badger cull. Tweet your support using “#stopthecull”, sign the petition, stick up a poster and tell everyone you know. Let’s give those badgers back their lives.

The Not-So-Grand National

Image by Paolo Camera

The Grand National starts today and its controversial history has already been repeated with two horses already having died in the preliminary stages; one from a jump, the other from a suspected heart attack. There have been numerous attempts to make the races safer but these do not seem to be making any difference, with horses continuing to die at each race.

It is a sad state of affairs that people would accept this practice as normal and only express remorse at the death of the horses rather than the initial cruelty. Furthermore, this remorse is short-lived and only shown during the Great National and later races. The races are treated as an experience and a great day out but who treats a death as a great day out? The fact that the horse is a lesser-being, an animal, changes the very treatment and perception that we grant it; this is wholly unfair.

Ludicrously, the RSPCA have argued that the Grand National, or horseracing in general, does not amount to animal cruelty, stating that animal cruelty was when people deliberately hurt animals for their own entertainment or pleasure. But surely this is exactly what the Grand National is? Jockeys beating their horses with sticks for their pursuit of money and fame, whilst others gather to watch, bet and enjoy. And year after year, horses die as a direct result of the broken bones caused by falling at fences they are required to jump. This is a very strange opinion to hear from the RSPCA.

The attempts to make the Grand National safer every year are unsuccessful. Changing the heights and types of fence are a step forward but they are not enough. The real problem in horseracing is the pressure that jockeys are put under to win the race and the difficulty to manoeuvre the horse when all horses are so close together, taking bends and dangerous jumps. It seems unlikely that any changes will be made to stop these horses having to die.

For some reason, cruelty to animals is a frowned upon practice yet the Grand National does not constitute as animal cruelty to many in society. The decrease of a threat of a death is enough to calm some fears but this is not enough to ensure the safety of our animals. Horseracing is a horrible sport that has been normalised into acceptance.

Misconceiving the Green Party

The Green Party Logo

It is a horrible misconception of the Green Party to take their name literally and assume that they are a single-issue party – that is to say that their policies are always, at the very least, tenuously linked to environmental policies. However, this is not the case. There’s no denying that the environment is at the core of a lot of Green policies but, despite this, the Greens have a vast manifesto full of policies on education, crime and personal economy. And, unlike other smaller political parties such as UKIP, their policy focus is not one that can easily be solved in one policy change. The Green Party is essentially a left-leaning party with Socialist ideals; hence, similar to the Labour party before it abandoned its roots and repositioned itself under Blair’s New Labour. It’ll be impossible to talk through all of their manifesto points in 600 words, but we can at least look at some of their biggest policy areas.

The basic Green Party policy page alone outlines their attitudes towards the banking system, health and the jobs. The Green Party offer support for policies that attempt to make society a more equal arena, for example, a “living wage” as a new minimum wage which they predict would be around £8.10 an hour. One specific section on young people states “we think it’s unfair that young people are demonised for hanging around on our streets” and then goes on to promise more spending on youth services and free travel on off-peak buses for those under 18 or in full time education. Furthermore, their extended manifesto highlights policies relating to the equality of those who define as LGBTI, women and disabled. They also have a keen focus on further democratising democracy by extending the right to vote to those aged 16 and 17, and changing the voting system to proportional representation for both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and allowing a right to recall your MP.

Of course, it would be deceiving to talk through the Greens’ manifesto points without whipping out their environmental policies. As environmental policies make their way into mainstream politics of the three main parties, it is often questioned what more The Green Party has to contribute to the field; some argue that there are only limited, realistic ways of achieving an environmentally friendly society. It is, in fact, the opposite of this; although the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats do offer environmental policies in their manifestos, these are quite often easy to complete and more anthropocentric (to conserve what is for human consumption). In contrast, many of the Green Party’s policies can be interpreted as ecocentric (focused on the welfare and value of nature).

Using the credible source of Wikipedia, we only have to look at the party’s encyclopaedia entry to note that they are not simply an Environmentalist party, but are often attributed the characteristics of being republican, progressive, democratic, socialist and soft Eurosceptics. Upon Natalie Bennett’s successful election in August 2012, she announced that the UK needed “investment in homes, investment in jobs, investment in energy conservation, renewable energy and public transport.” This clearly shows that, although the party does have an Environmentalist focus, they have room to focus on the wider social and fiscal issues that the people of the nation find important. If you find all of this surprising, visit www.voteforpolicies.org.uk and you will see most participants have discovered that the policies of which they most agree with are those of the Green Party. Try it yourself – choose four policy areas and choose which you most agree with; see what party you should be voting for. The fact that you won’t be able to spot The Green Party’s environmentalism in every area shows that they are not just a single-issue party.

The Political Compass

 

I recently decided to retake the Political Compass test, having previously found it a useful and more accurate tool to find out where on the political spectrum I am situated and, hence, to find the party whom I would most likely be more political aligned to. It came as no surprise that the closest party to me was the Green Party as before – being the only non-nationalist UK party in the bottom-left quartile, it wasn’t hard to see. Perhaps what I found most surprising was that I have moved a little to the right since my last test – I can’t speculate as to what may have caused this and I don’t think I want to; these are my views, and this is an accurate representation of them, so I shall leave them be, and retake the test in March and see what it says then. If you’ve not been on this website before, it’s a good basis to finding out who you should be voting for in the General Elections rather than simply basing it on the leader’s charisma.

My figures stand at:

• Economically 4.62 to the left;
• Socially 7.9 towards libertarian.

I’d be interested to hear what everyone else’s are, so if you’ve taken the test, post your most recent results, and if not, take it and post the results. I was once told that for those who have taken this test before, or based the test on politicians as they’ve grown older, that most move towards the right and towards authoritarian; in all honesty, I hope this doesn’t happen to me. So it would be interesting to see how others matched on the chart and whether this is reflected in reality.

Also, if you’re particularly interested in making sure you decide on the basis of your ideologies, I’d recommend a website called Vote for Policies – the website is a little out of date, but uses the 2010 general election manifestos of the 6 main UK parties and asks you to choose which you most agree with. At the end of the test, it tells you which party you most agreed with. Again, I found myself with the vast majority of Green Party policies. Perhaps if everyone used these tools and voted on the basis of the results, we’d have a much more interesting General Election. Couple that with a proportionally representative voting system, and it would be even more interesting. But that’s far off and very unlikely.

Choosing a Leader

Image by Cabinet Office on Flickr

It’s a funny thing choosing a leader for your country and essentially choosing someone to place your trust in to for a prolonged amount of time, with no real ability to recall your vote. It’s a big decision we must make, and most often one people end up regretting by the time the chosen one has finished dismantling the hard work that someone else has put in.

In the wake of Obama’s victory and re-election in the United States, it’s a little overlooked that we are now halfway through our Condemned Government (of course, unless by some stroke of luck, Parliament is closed) and that means we can officially count the days until we are certain their mandate will end. That wonderful time at which we can hold Clegg and Cameron to account and completely humiliate them with what will probably be a resounding Labour win is now closer than the time we voted them in (although this is arguable in itself.) The end is nearer than the beginning, although not exactly nigh yet.

It’s no secret that all of the parties are already planning their election campaigns for 2015, deciding who will lead their campaigns and what their manifestos and key policies will be, making predictions for what will happen over the next few years and be high on the agenda in 2015, so I’m going to make some of my own:

• Nick Clegg will be replaced as leader by Vince Cable either for the election or as a result of the election
• The PCC elections will show to have little support and little turnout and the decision will be reversed or reduced
• The Labour Party will not have tuition fees as a key policy or will only reduce fees by a small amount
• UKIP and the Green Party will see a small rise in support
• Labour will win an overwhelming majority, but still not match Blair’s 2001 majority. Lib Dems will lose a large number of seats and Nick Clegg will not win the Sheffield seat.
• The UK will enter another recession in 2013.
• Another European country using the Euro will collapse.
• There will be further military intervention in the Middle East, Syria or the Faulklands.

Some may seem far-fetched, and some might seem plain obvious. I think all of these are highly possible, but let’s see how the next two and a half years pan out, shall we?

Goodbye Lords Reform

Today it was officially announced that the House of Lords reform was to be dropped - of course, it had been expected for a while, but one couldn't cross their fingers enough that the first day of Parliament after the Summer Recess didn't have the announcement on its agenda; unfortunately, it was. And this brings about several questions; when will the Lords really be reformed? What does this mean for the coalition? And what more damage will this have for the Liberal Democrats?

It is shameful that a reform, that will make the UK much more democratic and our decision-makers more legitimate giving citizens more say in Parliament, has been dropped due to a backbench rebellion from the Tories. Regardless of the rebellion, it was almost guaranteed that the reform would have been successfully voted through with support from a vast number of MPs across the main three parties. Yet, repelled by the prospect of losing party support, David Cameron has decided to drop the bill.

It is not the first time that the Lords has been attempted to be reformed; in fact, the decision to reform the Lords was first made in 1911 - yet 101 years on, we have made no progress - both the Blair and Cameron/Clegg ministries have said something about it but neither has succeeded - why are Governments so scared of losing the Lords? The only possible reasons I can find is the expertise of existing Lords (who could easily run for election), the cost and a possibility of political deadlock; but is that the price we must have to pay for our democracy? Apparently so - perhaps it will be reintroduced to the agenda following 2015, or maybe the parties will have forgotten about it by then - especially if Scottish independence is on the tables.

What does this mean for the coalition? Little, apparently. Clegg's consequences are that the Lib Dems will no longer vote in favour of proposed constituency boundaries - something that might not even appear on the agenda prior to 2015 anyway. And besides, after the many contradictory to their manifesto changes that have been made, the Liberal Democrats will not shy away from a coalition that simply exists to prop the Tories up; name me one successful Liberal Democrat change and I will name you twenty Tory changes. A fresh call for Clegg to resign may be all over the newspapers tomorrow, but will he? I doubt it; now he is simply power-hungry. And would Vince Cable be any better? I can't say for sure.

As for the Liberal Democrats - regardless of who is in the Leadership positions it is certain that they will not bounce back from their 2011 election drop. They will not see another Government position for a long time now and we will most certainly see a return to a two-party system - this was the Lib Dems' time to shine, and get themselves known, but instead they became whipped and lost their own principles. I'm surprised so many MPs have remained the Lib Dem party and not yet switched or become Independent. I'm sure that's what I'd have done if I were a Lib Dem MP.

Perhaps this is the time for the Green Party to begin building on the Lib Dems' losses - support is seemingly growing at present, and with the announcement of the new leader today being Natalie Bennett - perhaps a new face, who may be more powerful and persuading than Caroline Lucas, will bring with it a new opposition to the House of Commons - and maybe in the far future, the House of Lords.

I think we know one thing about this Government; they will be known for their harsh austerity cuts, and their considerable number of U-Turns.