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 - 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 – 15th May

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

This week’s Prime Minister’s Questions was more a case of Deputy’s Questions; Clegg took Cameron’s place as the Conservative leader visited the United States, while Harriet Harman replaced Miliband. However, the proceedings were very much the same: attacks on the Government from Labour, attacks on Labour from Clegg, and Clegg showed himself to be the joker that British television expects. Clegg seemingly struggled under the pressure as the Liberal Democrats and himself were attacked by members on both sides of the house. Clegg was asked if he had “no influence or just didn’t care”, had to tell the members behind him to “hang on” and deflected from difficult questions by attacking Labour’s “blank sheet of paper”. Harman asked why the Prime Minister had only attended the House once in the last eight Wednesdays (although this is not very shocking considering the Easter recess and Baroness Thatcher’s funeral) but Clegg retorted branding Miliband as some of the best comedy Radio 4 had broadcasted. Harman’s questions were, however, a waste, as she used many to ask where the Prime Minister was rather than attack the Government’s policies, supporting Clegg’s later question as to “what were [Labour] doing?” during the last Government. The conversation on Europe dominated the house as pressure for an in/out referendum increases; why won’t the Prime Minister tell anyone how we would vote, and was the Clegg promising a referendum on Europe in 2008 “an imposter or just a hypocrite”? Topics ranged from unemployment levels to the privatisation of Royal Mail to the Prime Minister’s attendance of the Commonwealth summit in Sri Lanka, despite the nation’s human rights record. Clegg was far less confident than Cameron and is unlikely to want the House’s weekly pressure again for a short while.

Waging War on the Welfare State

Image by Helen Cobain

Welcome to April. At the next possible opportunity, make a U-turn.

Today is the day of the implementation of further dreaded cuts. As April arrives, we can only optimistically hope that it is some well-organised April Fool’s joke, but unfortunately we know better of a Conservative Government. Lambasted as the “nastiest” ever Government by the TUC, it is difficult to ignore the harsh effects of the benefit changes that are begin from today; from our beloved "bedroom tax” to the loss of legal aid. All of these seem set to only make the poor poorer in the name of deficit reduction.

While Iain Duncan Smith claims that they changes are “fair”, the shouts of society are in stark contrast and looking at the policies, we can understand why. Firstly, and most prominently argued, is the effects of the incoming “bedroom tax” which will force families out of social housing simply due to the number of rooms their house has. Two-thirds of the people who will be hit by this tax are disabled. People will be coerced into moving into smaller homes which may not meet their needs, in order to remain financially sustainable.

Perhaps in an attempt to pin some blame on the local councils, the Government are now offloading council tax benefits into local control (with a 10% reduction already imposed). Whilst local councils are already being forced into making cuts by the Government, there is little leeway for them to increase the spending in these areas and we are likely to see further reductions by local councils in order to meet the other demands required of them.

At the end of the month, the Universal Credit will be piloted in the area of Ashton-under-Lyne, intended to merge many different benefits together into one means-tested payments. However, this will undoubtedly reduce the amount of money that claimants will receive, pushing those with no alternatives further towards or below the poverty line. Furthermore, with the software for the pilot not yet looking ready, this reform is looking set to fail.

The U-turns and amendments of the Government on planned policies have simply demonstrated how ill thought-out their work is. With regards to the “bedroom tax”, it is a sorry state of affairs that the public and Labour must point out how the policy would disproportionately impact the elderly, disabled and military families, before the Government can realise what is wrong with their policies. It changes little though and many policies continue to pass through the Houses and into legislation without being properly scrutinised and surrounded by public and opposition doubt of their practicalities, effectiveness and, most importantly, impact.

However, the welfare system is far from perfect and its reform is not a topic we should just shy away from. There are things about the system which are fundamentally unfair; for example, that some families can be better on benefits than if they worked, but the battle plan of the Government is waging war on the wrong side. Rather than ensure that companies pay their employees wages which make living comfortably possible, therefore ensuring that people on benefits do not have more money than their working counterparts, they are simply reducing the amount of money they dole out to help those in real need of help.

The fiscal year of 2013/2014 will definitely hit hard, and those who need the most financial support will see it unfairly dwindling away whilst their rich counterparts receive a tax break. It is unfair, it is harsh and it is ill thought-out but these are reforms we will be forced to suffer the consequences of, simply so that we try and get rid of those minus signs in our bank balance.

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.

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

Prime Minister’s Questions – 28th November

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

The economy was on the tips of everyone’s tongues in the Commons this week (but when isn’t it?). After the initial expected tributes to those involved in flooding rescue and clean up operations, the Commons immediately descended into the brawl between Cameron and Miliband, both blowing their own trumpets about their economic policies. Miliband continued to rely on quoting Cameron’s words and twisting them to his advantage when questioning Cameron’s Work Programme as the “biggest and boldest programme since the great depression” to which Cameron reeled off, at a pace most couldn’t keep up with, a horde of statistics about why his policy was good and Labour’s previous policies were not. Quoting 700,000 people in work as a result of the programme, Cameron was left susceptible to criticisms from Miliband that only 2% of those on the programme were in sustainable jobs (although it was quickly pointed out that Miliband’s math didn’t quite work out). The infamous “calm down” jeer was called from the Labour benches as Cameron tried to defend his policies with a flustered face and glances to his ministerial colleagues for support. Questions were also asked about the results of the Leveson inquiry, but Cameron continuously evaded them only saying that we need a strong and robust independent regulatory service for our media.

 

Also published on Redbrick

Gasp! Shock! Horror!

Photo by Staffs Live on Flickr

Au contraire; perhaps more accurately descriptive words are “meh”, “so” or “duh” – the PCC elections were nothing different to what we expected. Low turnout, a high number of elected Independent candidates, and Liberal Democrats no longer showing as the third party, it’s not a surprise. Let’s go through it.

The Electoral Commission warned the Government of a predicted 18.5% turnout but (and here’s probably the biggest surprise of the day), it was even less than that at 15%. Some regions including my own, the West Midlands, which hosts the bustling population of Birmingham, boasted an incredibly low 12%. One ballot station in Newport received not one single ballot paper throughout the day – that was an easy count. With the lowest turnout at11.6% recorded in Staffordshire and the highest at 20% recorded in Northamptonshire simply demonstrates how apathetic the nation were towards these elections, and who can blame them? It was a disaster and simply shambolic.

30% of winning candidates were unaffiliated to political parties as part of their election campaigns. And again, this is no surprise. There was huge hostility towards the party politicisation of the police force so of course Independent candidates were going to thrive in these. And, in all honesty, well done to them! Aside from that, it’s perhaps not a surprise that Tories still managed to gain a simple majority of the positions (40%) despite their continually decreasing reputation. Why? Simply because this policy will be most popular with their party members, hence, their party members will probably make the bulk of voters. Other political party members will be ambivalent, not necessarily have a candidate fielded from their party or decide not to vote in protest.

UKIP have risen to the third party – well again, that’s not surprising for two reasons. Firstly, it’s difficult to argue that the Liberal Democrats have not lost all credibility they may have ever had, even to their own party members. I won’t dwell on this point. Secondly, the collapse of the Euro and the continuing use of our funds to bailout Eurozone countries is less than dissatisfactory to the electorate. The crisis is not one we can ignore, and our own financial difficulties are often blamed on this. So it’s no surprise that the electorate are increasingly supporting a party that wants to distance the UK from Europe as much as possible, and as the three main parties are not as committed to this cause, there is just the one party to turn to. UKIP are already the second largest party representing the UK in the European Parliament. Before long, the dissatisfied right-wing supporters of the Conservative party are sure to migrate to UKIP and increase their representation in the European Parliament in 2014, and perhaps the Commons in 2015.

So just one question remains; will the Government continue commencing this ridiculous policy, or will they reverse it? The elected PCCs begin their roles on Thursday; they will get paid between £65,000 and £100,000; this election cost over £75 million, and; the majority of them only have 7% of the complete electorate’s vote.

Of course, this Government will sit them out until 2016 – but will they continue after that? That’s something that could be a surprise.

 

Also published on Redbrick

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?

A Favourable Backbench Rebellion

Image by Constantin Deaconescu

I’m surprising myself by agreeing with Tory MP for Rochester and Strood, Mark Reckless, whom I have most often found myself contemptuously disagreeing with in the past. Plus, there’s the fact that he’s just a Tory in his day job. Mark is a massive Eurosceptic and somehow manages to argue that every problem we face is in some way Europe’s fault. Yet, yesterday, he stood as a backbencher and voted in favour of a reduction in the funds we provide to Europe. This, I fundamentally agree with in these tough times.

As a country, we are fighting our way through horrific austerity measures and facing devastating and disgusting cuts to our frontline services, yet continue to provide consistent financial support to this international body. Whilst we suffer the effects of cuts, we continue to provide funding to other countries without even beginning to negotiate a slight reduction in respect of our own financial difficulties. This is a preposterous idea. When we are supporting our own citizens less and less each day, why should we continue to support citizens of other countries at the same rate as before?

Now, don’t get me wrong; I do not believe we should wholly withdraw all of our financial support to other countries, but I believe in a proportional cut alongside our other cuts. If something must be cut, it must be cut in line with everything else. We should not favour one thing over another thing, unless with it comes overwhelming benefits.

Hence, I find myself on the side of Labour and a local Tory (although a backbencher, mind you) and agreeing with this successful rebellion on the Government. This is the right step forward; it’s just a shame that this does not create a mandate, and that the Government could still ignore the parliamentary vote when they make their EU funding proposal. Let’s hope they listen to the slight majority and reduce the EU benefit and return some of that saved money to our frightful economy.

Why the PCC Elections are a bit of a Farce!

Image from UKHomeOffice on Flickr

Like me, you should have received your polling card through your letterbox this week – and if you didn't,  why aren't you registered to vote? It might even be your first opportunity to vote in a national election. But if you're not someone who follows politics or current affairs very closely, you were probably confused by what it was for or discarded it as yet another takeaway menu – but what you held in your hands was another place marker in history that this Government has created.

You might have seen the rather menacing and, indeed, graphic awareness advert that has recently been released (you know, the one where the man gets beaten up on this bus, and the bus shelter gets smashed up). If not, here it is - try not to get too upset:

It’s probably the first and last you’ll hear of it, however – with the exception of this post. The Electoral Reform Society is expecting only 18.5% of the possible voting population to actually turnout at their local polling station; this is compared to 65% in the 2010 general election. And commentators are largely blaming the lack of publicity about both the elections and the candidates. Nominations for candidates, who are usually put forward by political parties, closed only this week, meaning that voters cannot yet find out about the candidates even if they wanted to.

But why is it all so important? Well, basically, you need to decide which politician you want to spend £65,000 to £100,000 to tell police officers to stop people committing crime. OK, maybe not so cynical… although, despite our regular condemnations of their service, I don’t think employing forty-one of these Police and Crime Commissioners is going to make the service any better than it already is.

And even so, isn’t it possible that each candidate, like all politicians, will be looking to find the “popular” crimes? And, by that, I don’t mean ones that criminals like committing, but those that most people are concerned about or the victims of. For example, littering, anti-social behaviour and drunkenness; perhaps neglecting the more serious and damaging crimes of serial theft and rape. (Again, cynical me…)

Perhaps this new initiative is just a way of allowing the Government, and politicians, to stick their oar into a part of society they haven’t yet got full control over yet. Now the legislation is through parliament, though, there is little we can do to stop it; and the fact that it was (and still is) little reported in the media means that the majority of society won’t even have their say.

Sceptical as I am, I can’t stress enough the importance of making sure you vote in this election though. If you want to make sure you have a say on what the Brum police get up to, grab your polling card and go to your local polling station on November 15^th. And definitely make sure you check out the details of the candidates on www.choosemypcc.org.uk from October 26^th.

Don’t forget and don’t miss out.

Also on Redbrick: http://www.redbrick.me/2012/10/pcc-elections-a-farce/

Don't Be Fooled - We're Not There Yet

Today, the news that the UK had finally shown economical growth of 1% and, hence, exited a recession was announced. It is pleasing news to the country, and the Government and the media are spinning into brilliance; yet I am sceptical. Now I know I'm not an economist but I can offer a short outsider's perspective on this item. I offer caution and definitely think it's no time for celebration yet.

First, and foremost, we must recognise that the quarter that has shown growth encompassed the Olympic period. The mixture of tourism, hospitality and sporting fever practically guaranteed that there would be no financial downturn over the three months from July to September; there were millions of people touring the city of London, an expensive place to be on the quietest of the day, and heightened prices (particularly within the Olympic park itself) for the events will more than definitely have seen a rise in profits amongst the companies. But, this is a onetime event; the aftermath of the Olympics is already over. In fact, if you're like me, I'd not thought about the Olympics at all for a while until this announcement. Despite the fact that it's only been announced that 0.2% of that is from the Olympic tickets, I'm sure the majority of this income is from the Olympics and it's not something that will be repeated. So don't hold your breath for massive growth in the next quarter.

Next, the Government is still announcing and planning further and further cuts that will have huge impacts on the incomes and budgets of households across the country. Hence, there will be little money to spend. People's bank accounts are already squeezed enough as it is without having to deal with a reduction in funding. With no internationals and no sporting events on, people will not spend anything other than on the basics, especially whilst having to save for Christmas.

And that's the final point. We are unlikely to see an immediate drop in growth next quarter, as Christmas will undoubtedly have some increased spending (on those tight budgets) that will cause some small amount of growth. But this will all cause a feeling of false hope; the Government and the media will spin it to say it's a good thing and something to congratulate the Government on, but in reality, they have done little. The Olympic project was set up under the Labour Government; this, plus the spending, was not a result of their policies, but the result of international and national patriotism and celebration.

I warn you, we will be back in a recession before long - unless, by chance, this happens to be the kick up the backside that the economy needs.

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.