Can the Greens retain their first and sole Westminster seat?

Photo © 2011 Patrick Duce

With May 2015 just over a year away, battle lines are beginning to be drawn between political parties in marginal seats around the country and many seats are likely to swap hands. One such seat is Brighton Pavilion where Labour is hoping to win back the seat gained by Parliament’s sole Green MP, Caroline Lucas.

Many constituencies across the UK are losing their ‘safe’ status and becoming far more marginal, and those that have long been considered marginal are now split among several parties. The result is that small parties have a far better chance of gaining seats in Westminster than they did do fifty years ago. As the share of the vote for Labour and the Conservatives continues to decline, parties like the Green Party, UKIP and local Independent candidates can begin to feel more of a chance of their victory.

However, a small party with little experience in a position of authority is incredibly likely to come across difficult hurdles when trying to enact their political agenda for the first time. This is something we have seen in Brighton and Hove Council, made worse by the fact that the Greens, although the largest political group, do not have overall control. Hence, the Conservatives and Labour have bargaining power and they have both made sure to use it. Having coincided with the necessity to respond to Government cuts, this has left the Greens in an extraordinarily unpleasant situation: to be forced by Westminster to make unpopular cuts but to also build a popular reputation for a party that has just gained its first position of authority.

The political situation in Brighton has undoubtedly left its electorate confused. They have a council where an unlikely coalition of Labour and Conservative representatives has co-conspired to defeat Green bills. They have a council where the Greens are being forced to do exactly the opposite of what they stand for – make cuts. They have a council dominated by a party that has an MP of the same party protesting against it. Each of these is noticeable to the electorate and, in politics, it is the decisions that you see that matter. When rubbish collected on the streets and pickets of refuse workers formed, the electorate noticed and vowed never to forget, forming a negative image of the Green council from then onwards.

Competition for the Westminster seat, therefore, is going to be heavily fought. A three-way marginal between the Conservatives, Labour and the Greens in 2010, it is likely that at the next general election it will be a contest solely between Labour and the Greens. And, dishearteningly, it is looking like it will be a tight win for the Greens at best. With the Conservatives suffering massively in the polls and Labour retaining a strong lead, the national swing plus general dissatisfaction with the local authority will likely lead to a strong surge in Labour support in the area. A swing of only 1.2% is needed for Labour to regain the seat and, thus, it is featured on their list of target seats.

So, if Caroline Lucas is to remain an MP, the Greens have a lot of work to do. Somehow, the party must simultaneously defend the city council’s record whilst also explaining why Caroline joined the picket against her own party. She will undoubtedly be put under immense scrutiny and pressure by the electorate as soon as campaigning gets underway. She must also respond to Labour’s increasing presence in the area and fight against the replication of the national swing. She must find a way to work with the party’s local councillors that show that internal factions do not adversely affect the party and demonstrate that the visibility of these factions can only be good for a democracy.

Running such a campaign would also likely use up the majority of Green resources for the election, negatively affecting the efforts of other candidates. For example, in 2010, the candidate for Norwich South doubled the number of votes from 7.4% to 14.9%. If such an increase were to be repeated in 2015, the seat would be considered a four-way marginal with the Green Party in the running for a second MP by 2020. Pouring a considerable amount of resources into this secondary constituency could make this far more successful.

Before any decisions can be made, a number of questions need to be answered. How successful will the Green Party be in the European elections this year and will such a success reinspire some confidence in the party? Will the referendum on council tax prove beneficial for the Green Party’s image? Will Caroline’s popularity as an MP trump over the negative perception of the council that has grown? Will the national swing to Labour feature heavily in Brighton? We have just 16 months until the election and, as we know, in the political sphere, anything can happen.

This “Friendly Conversation” is an Indication of Bridges Being Repaired

Photo © 2012 Dave Radcliffe

Recent conversations between the Liberal Democrat’s Nick Clegg and the Labour Party’s Ed Balls, alongside a very strange two-worded tweet by the Deputy Prime Minister, have led to increased speculation by the media of a coalition pact between the two parties. But with Labour seemingly set to easily achieve a majority in the House of Commons in 2015, is this a meaningless conversation?

The “friendly conversation” between the two senior politicians is causing a strange ripple of excitement across the political sphere yet it seems a strange conversation to have taken place. Reminiscent of the conversations that took place between Tony Blair and Paddy Ashdown in the run-up to the 1997 election, such a Lib-Lab pact seems unlikely to occur in the near future. With most polls predicting a comfortable majority for the official opposition, Miliband and Balls need not look to the Liberal Democrats to ensure that they are in Government from May 2015. Considering current predictions that the Liberal Democrats will struggle to achieve much more than 20 seats, having such a pact seems completely worthless and would not add much.

It would seem to suggest that Ed Balls is worried that the party might not achieve a majority or that internal factions within the Labour Party threaten their prospective Government’s power over Parliament. It would not be the first time, after all, that a Labour government has been defeated in Parliament due to differences within its own party – remember how Tony Blair lost the vote that would enable the detention of terror suspects for 90 days. With the recent return to the left of the political spectrum, some of the decisions Miliband’s government may wish to enact may not sit well with his own party, but may do so with a left-leaning Liberal Democrat party.

However, Nick Clegg has denied the relevance of this conversation, stating that it was just two parliamentary colleagues conversing amicably. Although his strange tweet of “Ed Balls”, confirmed genuine by his press office, and the reply by the Labour shadow minister seems to suggest more. Perhaps it is out of worry that a deeper rift may form between the two current coalition partners. However, with the Liberal Democrats suffering a massive reduction in membership, with left-leaning members leaving the party to join Labour or the Greens, and right-leaning members leaving to join UKIP, this could be an underhand attempt by the party leader to realign the party with a more socially focused Labour Party. With the Liberal Democrats looking to survive their first term in Parliament since almost a century ago, their need to be on friendly terms with Governmental parties is crucial.

Perhaps it is simply a friendly attempt to redefine the relationship between the two parties. With Labour constantly attacking the Liberal Democrats’ role within the coalition, this is understandable. In the unlikely situation that the Labour party do not return a majority in 2015, a good relationship with the Liberal Democrats is beneficial (although far from essential, as this coalition seems to show). Additionally, if the Labour Party do secure a majority, this may not be repeated at the 2020 election and a coalition with the Liberal Democrats may be necessary then.

What is blindingly obvious now, however, is the Labour Party’s willingness to accept the likelihood of coalitions in the future. With the power and support of the two main parties diminishing, it is increasingly possible that the Liberal Democrats will be a party of Government. Despite their poor reputation for their activity within the current coalition, their twenty or so MPs may be the MPs that allow for a majority Government. Furthermore, if the increased membership of UKIP does indeed translate into representation within the House of Commons, the Liberal Democrats will almost definitely be invited into coalitions in order to keep the far-right party away from governance, as the share of the vote is stolen from Labour and the Conservatives. This conversation between Nick Clegg and Ed Balls is an obvious indication that a relationship between the two parties is on the horizon, even if it is not necessary in 2015.

Greens Challenge Labour in Brighton

Photo by Brighton and Hove Greens

 

The Greens and Labour are engaging in war this week as both parties choose the city of Brighton as the host for their party conferences. 

Presenting a formidable challenge to Labour, the Greens' sole MP, Caroline Lucas, will be welcoming the party to her seat and attempting to garner support away from the party. 

Criticism of the Labour party is only fair. Having helped the UK into economic crisis, the party lost a lot of support, allowing the Conservatives into power. With their horrible policies, the Tories have now forced people up and down the country into increasingly detrimental positions, where families struggle to make ends meet and the most vulnerable are treated like a burden on the state. Of course, the Labour party can't be blamed directly for the introduction of these abhorrent policies but their recklessness in government played into their opposition's hands, causing the coalition we have today. To add salt to the wound, however, it appears that the Labour party have few plans to end this reign of terror enforced by the 'nasty party' and seemingly want to continue with the timetable of austerity, reversing few of the Tories' cuts and policies if they were to gain control of Government in 2015.

Additionally, the Labour party seem to be on the path to destruction in the General Election. Despite their high polling levels, a parliamentary majority still remains dependent on their ability to connect with voters, but it's hard to do that when you have no, at least public, policies. Whether it's a tactically slow release, or a case of developing policies at the last minute, Miliband's party are sending their support packing as people struggle to understand what the party stands for. Far from the certainty of receiving the support from their original voter base, Labour seem to be only pushing away votes rather than drawing new ones in. 

In the three-way marginal that is the constituency of Brighton Pavilion, Labour are hoping to win the seat from the Greens, as part of their bid to reassert themselves as the people's party. Yet, it will not be a surprise if they lose the seat again, as they continue down the path they are taking. Despite the public spats the Greens have had in the council and some of their lesser appreciated policies by local residents, Caroline Lucas continues to hold strong support, if only by a margin. With their conference having ended this week, the Greens have voted for policies that the public want, but the Labour party doesn't (yet) offer: no to fracking, nationalised railways and the reversion of austerity policies, for example. It is on this basis that the Greens will remind Labour party members of an alternative as they challenge the official opposition to the status of de facto opposition. Labour party members will be greeted with this billboard, which criticises their lack of policy and position on the right of the political spectrum, on their way to conference this week:

Although the Greens would be extremely pleased to gain support on the basis of their policies and establish themselves as a true party in Westminster, what is more important is the introduction of their policies. Hence, this argument attempts to work in two ways. The first is that it will persuade Labour members to realign with the Greens. The second that will prompt Labour members to ask their party to introduce these policies to their manifesto.

In order to ensure success and stop the demise of Labour majority governments (which may not necessarily be a bad thing), Miliband and his party members need to reconsider their strategy and begun introducing policy promises that will get people back on their side. 

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.

Ed Miliband Makes Landmark Speech at The Trade Union Congress, Calls on Unions to Accept Radical Changes

Photo by Anthony Mckeown

In a landmark speech to the Trade Union Congress conference, Miliband called on Unions to accept the radical changes the Labour party is proposing to make to the way their membership is formed.

Miliband was expected to receive some hostility as he addressed trade unionists in Bournemouth as he set out his vision for a system where union member must opt in to the Labour party, rather than become automatically affiliated. Prior to the conference, the proposal was widely criticised by unions for its expected effects on how well-funded and supported the Labour party is.

The Labour Party leader began by paying tribute to Lesley Mercer, the first female President of the TUC, and Edward Stanley, a Conservative Prime Minister of the late Nineteenth Century, proclaiming him ‘Ed Red’, a nickname commonly attributed to Miliband. He continued with his speech by praising the membership of trade unions, condemning the Prime Minister for ‘ooz[ing] contempt for trade unionists.’

As he breached the most controversial and tensional topic of trade union membership, the Congress was, in contrary to the attitude expected of them, fairly supportive of his reforms. Miliband called for ‘a real voice in our party based on an active choice to be part of our party’ and asked for unions to get the ‘courage to change’. No delegates took advantage of the question and answer session to criticise the reforms that Miliband proposed, demonstrating a positive response from trade unionists.

The remainder of Miliband’s speech...

This article was originally published on H4TV - for the full article, click here

Fear Will Maintain Our Status Quo

Photo by Roger Harris

It is a much discussed topic that the UK suffers from the illness of a two-party system, whereby either Labour or the Tories hold power over the Government, even though it is not evident that either party actually received the support of over 50% of the entire eligible electorate. Medicine for such a problem ranges from compulsory voting to increased relevance of parties to a change in the voting system. However, the tumour that eats away at British confidence in our political system is unlikely to be defeated for one simple reason - fear.

Since the early twentieth century, government control has remained firmly in the hands of either the Tories or Labour. Yet, especially as of late, dissatisfaction with this established status quo is high, represented in a drop of party membership and electoral support; for example, neither party received a majority in the 2010 election. As such, you would be forgiven for thinking that the popularity of smaller parties may have soared and these two parties would have been displaced. Sadly, this is not the case. Again, a number of reasons have been previously been given to this decline, including similarities between political parties and the lesser prevalence of political activism in modern-day life. Where membership of a political party used to be a major part of an individual's lives, this practice no longer remains, with a wider range of activities preferred.

Poll levels for these two parties are always fairly close or perceived to be close but are in no way representative of support from the full electorate. As such, the make-up of the House of Commons is even less representative of public opinion as the First Past The Vote (FPTP) voting system does not allow for such. Take, for example, the 2010 election. Out of an electorate of an estimated 45,603,078, 29,687,604 voted but only 10,703,654 voted for the Conservative party. Therefore, of the estimated electorate, only 23% voted for the Tories, whereas of those who voted, 36.1% voted for them. Yet, inexplicably, the Tories hold 47.1% of UK seats, representing roughly double the number of constituents who voted for them. In contrast, the Green Party received 265,243 (0.9%) votes, meaning that, for a properly representative House, the Green Party should have at least 5, possibly 6, MPs. It's no surprise that people become increasingly disenfranchised with politics as such a House doesn't represent them.

It is this lack of proportionality in the House that makes the situation worse. As people recognise that wide support for a small party doesn't necessarily result in representation in the House - the support needs to be concentrated under FPTP - they realise that their vote will only make any real difference if they vote for the Tories or Labour. It becomes a protest vote - worried that the worst of the two evils will take power if they don't vote, or they vote for a small party, people vote for the lesser of the two evils. People are fearful of a situation where the worse of the two options take power. Even though this feeling is quite widespread, and people know that concentrated voting for a smaller party could wreck the status quo, people fear that it won't work and, thus, stick to voting for one of the two major parties. While this attitude to voting continues to exist, we are unlikely to see anything different - maybe further coalitions are in our future, but we are bound to see the Tories or Labour form the majority of these.

Hence, the only real way to inspire confidence in voters and show them that there is a way to oust these two parties, is to introduce proportional representation, where every person's vote influences the makeup of the House of Commons, where 1% of the vote means 1% of the seats. Unfortunately, even this is unlikely to ever occur. Whilst Labour or the Tories hold control of Government and they know that a system of proportional representation would be detrimental to their prospects, we are unlikely to ever see this proposal make its way into law. The closest opportunity we had was when the Liberal Democrats coerced their coalition partners to hold a referendum on the Alternative Vote, a step-down from their original Single Transferable Vote preference, which would have barely bettered the situation but was voted away anyway, reducing any chance of us changing this system.

There are only two ways in which we are going to be able to change our two-party system. Either it will be a long process as small parties slowly grow in support as their small local successes begin to get noticed, but this is not an ideal approach. Alternatively, the process could be achieved through coalitions where smaller parties garner support through their successes in government but if we are to take the Liberal Democrats in this coalition as an example, confidence in smaller parties is unlikely to grow.

Also posted on Backbench

Prime Minister's Questions - 4th September

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

MPs appeared rusty as the first session of Prime Minister's Questions began after the Summer recess. It comes as no surprise that the dominant topic in the House was Britain's response to the Syrian civil war, following the recall of parliament for a debate on military intervention last week. Cameron and Miliband debated in a calm manner, agreeing on points that a diplomatic solution must be reached by convening talks between the warring parties and the nations backing them. Cameron couldn't resist a shot at Miliband, ending their exchange with a complaint that Miliband divided the house on a vote 'that led to a vote'. Many members of the House called for a more concerted effort in bettering relations with Iran, who were named as complicit in an attack on the British embassy, following the election of a new president. Cameron argued that Britain needed to be cautious but that he had taken steps towards this.

Asked about why the Tories won't back a mansion tax but continue to implement a bedroom tax, Cameron retorted that Labour needed to learn what a tax was before ridiculing Miliband about whether they would reverse it if they were in Government and demonstrating how to nod in response. Miliband showed no sign of Labour's commitment post-2015, showing an unwillingness to show their true views, either because they would be unpopular or so as not to reveal their tactics. Prime Minister's Questions only return for a few weeks before party conference season puts it on a hiatus again.

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.

Prime Minister’s Questions – 17th July

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

How much of the UK’s legislation has been bought by lobbyists? Both sides of the House questioned that today. The Tories questioned Labour’s relationship with trade unions, in particular Unite, with Cameron stating that trade unions buy Labour’s policies, candidates, MPs and even leader. Meanwhile, Labour requested an answer to the connection between the advice of Lynton Crosby and the decision to not go ahead with plain packaging on tobacco products. Neither side gave particularly satisfactory answers. Miliband was particularly quiet on the day’s announcement of falling unemployment (despite long term unemployment levels having gone up) and this was something that Cameron made sure the House was aware of. As expected, another dominant topic was the Keogh Report, which placed 11 NHS Trusts under special measures with both sides of the house disagreeing on the change of number of nurses and clinical staff since the Government took power in 2010. The sight of Cameron lying back in relaxation, head towards the ceiling, was not unobvious; as we head into the Summer Recess, Cameron is in a strong position, with a recent poll placing Labour and the Conservatives on an equal lead, and he’s revelling in the knowledge. According to him, Labour’s leadership is “in crisis” – everyday, the country is getting stronger, and everyday Miliband’s leadership is getting weaker.

Remembering Thatcher

 Image by Chris Beckett

In the wake of Margaret Thatcher’s death, euphoria appears to be sweeping over the nation, with calls to rename the August Bank Holiday ‘Margaret Thatcher Day’ and to replace the five pound note’s Elizabeth Fry with Maggie. However, this is not as wide-spread a demand as it would appear to be; the demand is being exemplified by the media and the governing Tory party. In a bid to continue the celebration of the late Prime Minister, Tories are aiming to present the controversial leader on an everyday basis. But surely there are better and more politically neutral people who can take these places, if they do indeed need taking?

Margaret Thatcher’s death in April provided a fresh chance on the debate on her legacy – whichever side of the spectrum you swing, it is difficult to deny that she changed the scene of the UK forever – but the celebrations of this legacy have evolved into an unprecedented demand for everlasting jubilation. Tory MP for Wellingborough, Peter Bone, wants the country to celebrate the late August Bank Holiday as Margaret Thatcher day as early as next year, with the second reading of the Private Member’s Bill (aptly named ‘Margaret Thatcher Day Bill’) taking place today. At present, there are no days specially named after any politicians, let alone Prime Ministers, so it seems strange to allow the first one to be named after someone so controversial, who continues to provoke such strong debate nearly 35 years since she first took power. After all, surely there have been better candidates, solely within the Prime Minister category, for such an honour. Take, for example, Clement Attlee, the mid-20^th century Labour Prime Minister who oversaw the creation of the NHS and the world’s most extensive welfare state. This man’s work improved (and continues to do so) the life of millions, significant reducing the deaths of diphtheria, pneumonia and tuberculosis within the working class very quickly, as well as providing well-paid work to consultants. Whatever your views on the current NHS, this legacy continues to live on and improve the lives of millions, and is undeniably a major benefit to the UK.

Furthermore, although not a direct decision of the Palace of Westminster but the Bank of England, there is a view to remove Elizabeth Fry from the five pound note and replace her with the Conservative Prime Minister, Winston Churchill. However, as the only female (excepting Her Majesty) remaining on UK currency, there is a large campaign to increase the number of women remembered on our banknotes. Again, we are presented with the proposals to replace Elizabeth Fry with dear old Maggie. There are most certainly other women we can be proud of and owe more of today’s rights and luxuries too. We have Florence Nightingale, the social reformer and founder of modern nursing, Emmeline Pankhurst, the leader of the suffragette movement, and Emily Davison, the suffragette who died fighting for women’s rights to vote, who are all deserving of a celebration of their contributions to Britain’s rights and freedoms. They draw respect and inspire many across the political spectrum and across the world that Thatcher does not share; they lived their lives to further the women’s cause in a way that Thatcher denounced; and, they formed a pillar of society alike to those that Thatcher wished to destroy.

Despite her undeniable changes to the country, Thatcher is far less deserving of the privileges currently being discussed to be given posthumously than others who lived before her. As a controversial character, she inspires both joy and hatred in citizens across the country and, indeed, world. There are most definitely other more unifying and celebratory historical figures who are worthy of the luxuries that are being granted to our former Prime Minister, whom we should ensure we consider.

Prime Minister's Questions - 26th June

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

Today’s Prime Minister’s Questions was dominated by questions on infrastructure, with members eagerly awaiting the Spending Review to be delivered by the Chancellor immediately after the scrutiny session. Miliband seemed in his element today as he attacked the Government for their poor record on delivering their promises on infrastructure, highlighting that only 7 of 756 infrastructure projects have been completed under this government, and 5 of those were started under Labour. Cameron tried to deflect the argument by questioning Labour’s record in their 13 years of power, to which Miliband easily answered that there 3700 rebuilt schools, 1000 new hospitals and 3500 new children’s centres. Cameron returned to his usual defence and stated that it was because of this that the country was in this “mess”. According to the Prime Minister, half of the population think Miliband belongs in Sesame Street rather than Downing Street. Serious concerns over the alleged bugging of the friends and family of Stephen Lawrence by police were raised by a Labour MP, with a positive response from the Prime Minister that two independent inquiries had been set up by the Home Secretary to investigate and that no additional oppositions were ruled out. Labour were attacked for the conflicting reports from Miliband and Balls about their commitments in regard to borrowing, with both contradicting each other. The session only served to prove that neither of the main parties are prepared to commit to further investment if elected in 2015.

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.

Legislation is Only Half the Battle for Equality

Image by Michael Fleshman

The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill passed through its third reading in the House of Commons yesterday, allowing it to now be debated in the House of Lords before hopefully becoming law. An amendment by Labour to ensure that the Government also holds a consultation on whether to allow heterosexual couples to enter civil partnerships marks another step towards equality between heterosexual, bisexual and homosexual couples. 

The bill passed by a large majority of 205, showing concrete support for this incredible step, but it is sad that 161 MPs continue to show opposition to the motion and that 119 were not present at the vote. Still, we must remain enthused that the legislation passed through the House of Commons. Of course, there is further scrutiny, perhaps much more in depth, to be undertaken in the House  of Lords, but we are halfway to some fantastic marriage reform, allowing homosexual couples across the UK to commit to each other in marriage with their heterosexual counterparts.

Labour’s amendment to include a consultation on civil partnerships for heterosexual couples is also important. Whilst marriage is “religious” in its connotations, Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists and mixed-religious couples are excluded. Furthermore, it also demonstrates another level on which homosexual couples are differentiated from their fellow heterosexual citizens. The new proposal to the Government is simple; allow heterosexual couples to enter civil partnerships, or abolish civil partnerships. To continue this difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples is to shift equality in the wrong direction. 

However, a change in legislation is only half the battle. The country continues to face the problem with the actual day-to-day perceptions and discrimination of LGBTQ* people. As we have seen before, given women the vote and other equalities does not rid the evil that is discrimination via sexism. The same stands with LGBTQ* rights – homophobia and stigma based on sexuality continues to exist. A woman even tried to drive through the gates of the Palace of Westminster during the vote yesterday in a bid to show her lack of agreement; people will  go to incredible lengths to show their opposition. Whilst “outing” is a problem and a risk, we must continue the battle for sexuality equality.

Despite the vote being a landmark victory, we’re not quite at proper equality yet. Hopefully, we can reach a day where marriage is marriage, no matter who is in it.

Prime Minister’s Questions – 20th March

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

A serious undertone lay within the house today as members gathered for the budget announcement, resulting in a far more polite and short rally between Miliband and Cameron and the level of jeering was kept at a minimum. Finding consensus on the issues of the Cypriot euro bailout and the support for Syrian opposition, it could easily have been forgotten what a landmark day it was for the country; perhaps the work on the Leveson inquiry has showed the two parties that it is not impossible to reach something that all can agree on. Questions revolving around the budget were also kept at a minimum, most likely awaiting the question session after the announcement. Yet, this did not stop the Conservatives being blasted with their decision to cut the fifty pence tax rate for millionaires, which is set to come into effect next month. There was a disgusting display of a lack of concern from the Prime Minister when he appeared to shun the remarks of a Labour MP who told the story of a homeless teenager who must live off eleven pounds a week due to the Government’s economic policies. Obviously tired of the questions on the economy, Cameron claimed taking advice from the Labour party on the economy was ‘like taking advice from Enron on accountancy’ before refusing to answer what he would ‘spend his millionaire’s tax cut on’.

Prime Minister's Questions - 6th March

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

A furious Cameron erupted in the chamber today, blasting Labour as ‘croupiers’ and demanding that Miliband apologise for the “shambles” that the Labour treasury left the economy in under the last Government. Labour attacked the Government for their opposition to the EU’s banker’s bonus cap, suggesting it as hypocrisy that they would want to do this whilst inflicting deep and damaging cuts, including the “bedroom tax” on the poorest and most vulnerable of society. Cameron refuted the claims, arguing many times that the reform was not a tax, and that the most vulnerable sectors of society were exempt. Miliband ridiculed the Conservative party on their 2015 prospects, stating that he was glad Cameron was preparing for being in opposition by asking him questions, before saying that he looked forward to seeing Theresa May directly opposite him in opposition. One Liberal Democrat MP (in a rather dazzling yellow waistcoat) congratulated their victor in the Eastleigh by-election, proclaiming the benefits of sticking by their leader . Another MP asked how Cameron ‘s talks with Ukip, the party of “nutcases”, were going. Cameron almost ignored the remark, instead stating that it showed that Labour were going “precisely nowhere”. Finally, one Labour MP told Cameron that if doesn’t “get a grip”, he should let Miliband in the seat to do so instead.

Prime Minister’s Questions – 23rd January

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

As Nick Robinson predicted, Prime Minister’s Questions was dominated by “the defining questions of the general election and the next five years” as all parties clashed over the topic of Europe after Cameron’s most crucial speech in her premiership. The question of which direction Cameron would be campaigning in favour of was carefully dodged over and over again as Miliband attacked his uncertainty. This uncertainty, Labour argued, would affect our economy, our businesses and our international relations. Attacked by his own party, Cameron was forced to defend himself against the jeers of backbenchers and the opposition with his line that he would want to stay in a renegotiated Europe. Turning the question on Miliband, Cameron coerced Labour into rejecting that they want a referendum. Meanwhile, a Scottish Member of Parliament ridiculed Cameron for saying that the two-year time frame for the Scottish referendum was too long whilst giving a five-year time frame for a referendum on Europe. Cameron retorted with a remark that implied the Scottish National Party were stupid for thinking of leaving the United Kingdom without even attempting negotiations. However, although Cameron’s remarks were stronger than Milibands, his continued resistance to his backbench Eurosceptics, the Labour party and the rising force of UKIP suggests that his position on Europe will not be as concrete as he might like it to be.

January 2013 in Economics

Image by HM Treasury on Flickr

Now, before I start, I must admit that I am no expert in the field of economics. There are few words and statistics that I understand. But, the relationship between economic policy and return on that policy, in the way of contraction or growth, is not a difficult analysis to undertake. Hence, the recent news items regarding the nation’s return to contraction, the closure of Jessops, the cut of jobs by Honda and the contraction in the construction industry, all within the space of the week, signify a massive problem in our fiscal system.

In an earlier post, I predicted that the return to growth in the third quarter of 2012 was merely the result of the temporary Olympics and Jubilee celebrations (otherwise known as “artificially strong growth”) and this is exactly what has been confirmed by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), noting that without the Olympics the economy would have flat-lined. However, the final quarter of 2012 included the Christmas period – a period of increased and frivolous spending – so it comes as a surprise that we see this contraction so quickly. In another post, I predicted that 2013 would see the UK re-enter a recession. Now this  has not yet happened, (obviously due to the first quarter only having recently begun) but with such a quick contraction and the dent made in the employment figures this week, we can only expect to see this or a dramatic turn of events in the coming months.

Yet, based on just these major newsworthy statistics on job losses, we can already see 2170 people starting their new year without a job, entering an environment where intake of new employees is minimal and those without a job are being punished by the coalition’s blaming policies. Before long, we can see these people losing money on the benefits they did not necessarily used to have to rely on, and then being called scroungers of the state due to their reliance on and complaints about the reformed benefits system via this so-called revolutionary universal tax credit. Ironically, the Government wish to be the helping hand up, but these people will only remember having to take a forceful step down.

But much more ludicrously is the fact that this very week, despite these detrimental austerity measures, despite these massive job losses, despite the number of people’s lives they have ruined, our beloved MPs want a 32% raise in their wage packet. It comes as no surprise, that those who demanded the highest raise were from the already particularly well-off members of the Conservative party. Perhaps more surprisingly is that this raise was demanded by members of parties across the board and not just those of the three main parties.

It is disgusting and awful that those who are coercing the saving of money, reduction of budgets and removal of benefits are those also pleading for more money in their pockets. Because, after all, MPs should be exempt from the rules that they place on the rest of society.

Prime Minister’s Questions – 9th January

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

Happy New Year wishes from the “nasty party” and the “little red pests” as the first Prime Minister’s Questions greeted us this week. The re-launch of the coalition appears to have reinvigorated Clegg as, sat on the front bench, his usual solemn-looking face was replaced with laughing and increased gestures. Miliband attacked the coalition for its lateness in publishing the audit, before proclaiming it would only highlight the Government’s broken promises on the NHS, sexual inequality and the tagline “we are all in this together”. Cameron failed to rebut the claims, only making different points about the policy areas, then stating that the five million pounds that goes to the Labour party does not guarantee any returns. One Member of Parliament asked of the Government’s intention to repeal the fox hunting ban to which Cameron ignored the question instead stating that the “only little red pests he pursues are in this house”. A referendum may seem impending after it was stated that the Government would seek public consent for any EU settlement that is reached. A backbench and, obviously, critical Conservative MP asked the PM whether he was politically closer to Lord Tebitt or Clegg and received the response that Cameron is, and always will be, closer to the Conservatives than any other. Strangely, the resignation of Conservative peers and the Northern Ireland violence didn’t get a look-in.

Prime Minister’s Questions – 19th December

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

It seemed like some festive cheer was in the air this week as it took a good few minutes before the battle of statistics began – it even looked like Cameron and Miliband were just going to stand there agreeing with each other for a while as they talked about various military topics. We finally got a glimpse of what Cameron’s “Big Society” is when he shouted about the fantastic hard work thousands of volunteers are offering to food banks around the country; Miliband has now captioned the scheme as for “feeding hungry children in Britain”. Cameron seemed unable to defend himself against Miliband’s attacks on the Tory’s cuts calling them “out of touch” with families and saying that the richest were getting a tax reduction. According to Cameron, Miliband has nothing else to offer this Christmas. Other Labour MPs gifted the Tories with their own panto with some new Christmas movies – the Grinch Who Stole Christmas starring the Chancellor, the Muppets Christmas Carol starring the Lib Dems and It’s Not A Wonderful Life for the Poor starring Cameron. There was a shout of “can we have a vote?” from a Tory MP as one Labour MP gave his season’s greetings to the Speaker. One final attack from Labour saw a suicide note that blamed the Government’s reforms of the Disability Living Allowance. However, the impending end of the world never managed to make it onto their agenda. Let’s hope they’ve got a secret plan for the survivors up their sleeves.

Also published on Redbrick