Defend Education's Demonstration and the Aftermath

Photo © 2014 James Phillips

The protest at the University of Birmingham had its troublemakers, but we should make sure not to accuse everyone there of violence and vandalism, and should recognise all of those at fault in this multi-faced debate.

This post is going to be very different from my others and will describe Wednesday’s events and aftermath from a very personal perspective. Attending the event as a journalist reporting for the University newspaper, Redbrick, I became subject to the same treatment as the protesters I was with. Although I sympathise completely with the demands of Defend Education, my attendance at the protest was as a completely impartial reporter. This article, posted on my personal blog, is a true account of my thoughts and feelings about the day.

The demonstration was never going to be a peaceful protest. It is almost impossible to actually hold a peaceful protest – one where aggression is absent – because of the passion that drives such events. Here it was anger towards the university at their continual attempt to shut down political conversations, anger at their choice to spend £60,000 on injunctions rather than raising the wage of the lowest-paid employees, and anger at the initiation of disciplinary procedures against six randomly selected students from the peaceful occupation of the Senate Chambers last year. This aggression cannot be held back otherwise the protest would be pointless. However, the physical aggression we saw from both sides – the protesters and the security staff – was unnecessary, damaging for the group’s reputation and a major set back for this opportunity for change. We only have to look at how close the group's demands came to becoming part of the Guild of Students' Beliefs and Commitments to understand this.

Defend Education’s potentially game-changing demonstration was hijacked, as we have seen multiple times before, such as at the 52,000-person strong march against tuition fees in London in 2010, which ended in the violence at Millbank. What could have been a loud march around campus, even ending in a new occupation or a strengthening of the existing one, was immediately ruined by the minority who chose to break into the campus’ well-loved icon: Old Joe clock tower. If there was one thing that the demonstration could have done to annoy the majority of students at the University, it was the defacement of this beloved symbol – the graffiti painted on to the base of the tower has angered even those students who would have ended the day still completely oblivious to this growing campaign. The unfurling of a 50-foot banner from the top of the clock tower, a clever move, would have been accepted, but this vandalism won’t be forgotten or forgiven. We are already seeing a rallying call for a clean up operation much like that seen in the aftermath of the London Riots of 2011. This act has unified students against the campaign group, rather than with the group.

To add salt to this injury, the demonstration moved around campus trying to gain access to the Aston Webb building through multiple entrances. The use of smoke grenades and fireworks to cause disruption (I can only assume in an attempt to cause confusion that could be used to gain access) was another step too far and any aggression from the security staff in response is overshadowed by this fact. Spectators will say that the security staff were only defending themselves and the University buildings from this threat. Maybe this is correct, but the level of aggression from the staff was disproportionate, and only angered protesters even more. When students are being allegedly shoved to the ground, some by their hair, this obviously exceeds what would be categorised as a proportionate response. So, noone is off the hook here: those who threw the smoke grenades and fireworks, and the security staff who violently responded are as equally as bad as each other. The eventual entry to the Great Hall did involve the violent breaking down of a rear entrance to the Hall, and this is certainly another example of actions that have damaged the campaigning group’s image, but we must remember that damage to property is trumped by the damage to persons that we had already witnessed, and were still yet to witness.

We must remember, however, that a small and unknown minority of the protesters committed these violent acts and that we cannot simply lump the entire demonstration into the same group. Arguably, the others are complicit in their acts by continuing to demonstrate and not distancing themselves from the actions but after some meticulous planning and large-scale coordination, to abandon the protest would have disheartened many in the movement and was simply not an option.

Once in the Great Hall, aside from the construction of a barricade made from equipment set-up for the Give It A Go Fair (another action that meant sympathy with the campaign was lost from students, although it’s not entirely clear whether protesters knew this was the case), the group were entirely peaceful, simply singing songs and co-ordinating next steps, despite the intimidation tactics used by security staff filming from overlooking balconies.

The arrival of the police caused a further loss of morale from those in the protest. As we were forced to stand outside in the cold and rain, without access to food, drink or toilet facilities or several hours, tensions heightened, protesters became agitated and some became unwell. Despite our pleas for some humanity, we were detained with no charge, and some who needed medical attention were refused it. The police can deny it was a kettle as much as they like but if one goes by its definition – the containment of protesters within a police cordon, with police deciding when and how protesters can leave – it is most definitely what happened on that dismal evening. Those who had committed the crimes that we were accused of – aggravated trespass, criminal damage, assault -, those who were just protesting and those who were there reporting, were all considered as guilty as each other. As a condition of leaving the kettle, we were all (illegally) given a choice: to give our details to police, or to be immediately arrested and taken to the police station. 13 people chose the latter, and ended up spending up to 30 hours in detention for a refusal to give over their names. This use of illegal tactics immediately put the group at a disadvantage and shows another classic example of intimidation tactics, designed to dissuade people from taking part in these legitimate activities again.

We must also take into account the University’s attempt to play psychological games with the protesters and other students, using divide-and-rule tactics. The University’s plea for sympathy over social networks and the follow-up message from the Vice-Chancellor now dominate the market for empathy from students. While students at the protest were being detained, charged and taken to court, unable to defend themselves on campus, the University slyly and successfully continued its campaign to discredit the group and, thus, their demands.

Hence, this leads me to my final point. It is incredibly disappointing that the Guild of Students, a union designed to represent students, support students, and fight for better conditions for staff and students at the University, has taken the stance it has. Having read through the President’s personal statement, I can agree with her that the way her distress was ignored by protesters was appalling and that should not be tolerated. But, similarly, those within the police kettle who needed medical attention were ignored. The censure of the Vice President (Education) at the Guild Council took place without the Vice President being able to defend herself and ignores the mandate on which she was elected: to fight against fees and cuts, and for better student representation. Of course, this latter point is a matter of interpretation, but this is the Vice President’s interpretation of mandate and, on that basis, she was fulfilling it. Further, she was doing the Guild’s job and supporting those students who had been illegally arrested, whilst the Guild ignorantly condemned the entire group of protesters.

Despite being a supporter of Defend Education and their demands, I agree that the demonstration was an appalling display. The violence and vandalism that happened had no place within the remit of a peaceful protest. Protesters did themselves, and the cause, no favours by resorting to it. The movement’s growing credibility was destroyed that evening when the clock tower was defaced, security staff were assaulted and an event designed for the benefit of students was postponed. This is not to say, however, that everyone at the demonstration is to blame, but just the minority who had their minds set on vandalism and violence from the start. Furthermore, the reaction from security staff, the university and the illegal arrests made by police show that they behaved just as inexcusably on, and prior to, the day. This is not an event that should be, or will be, forgotten.

Buckingham Palace: Where Public Money Goes to Waste

Photo © 2009 Kyle Wood

Discovering severe financial mismanagement by the Royal Household, the Public Accounts Committee have now suggested that Buckingham Palace should be opened up to more paying customers when the Queen is not in residence.

Every year, £31m of taxpayer funds is handed over from the Government to the monarchy to allow them to perform their “official duties”. Arguably a nationalised institution, the monarchy spends this massive sum of money maintaining their palaces, paying their staff and funding Royal duties, like state visits.

It’s a well-worn analogy by now, but we must consider the hypocrisy of our funding of this historic institution. Whilst measly citizens tire themselves out with endless work and constant anxiety, hearing headlines around rising council taxes and electricity bills and seeing their friends, family and neighbours evicted from their homes because they have one too many bedrooms, the Queen seems exempt. Her home is taxpayer funded much like council houses but, with 240 bedrooms, the monarch, unlike less-privileged members of the population, isn’t faced with an eviction notice.

Yes, having a monarchy does come with its benefits – they do bring in some income through tourism – but these are benefits that can easily be found by pumping this extraordinary amount of money into other sectors. And, in light of the Public Accounts Committee’s findings that the Household has been overspending, what trust can we have in those that manage the Queen’s finances. According to the Committee’s reports, poor management by the Queen’s staff has meant that adequate funding has not been found for the monarchy to perform their duties that provide these benefits. “The Queen has not been served well,” the report finds. With just £31m a year and only £1m in their reserve fund, it must be difficult getting the food on the table in the evening. We mustn’t forget also that the monarchy does have its own private source of income, generated from their land, property and wider assets. Despite this, and the Public Accounts Committee’s criticism, the grant is set to rise to £37.9m this year.

And, therefore, it is simply ludicrous that those in the population with sincere adoration for the Monarchy, a keen interest in historical architecture or a curiosity to know what a life of luxury looks like, should be the people laden with the task of coughing up for the household’s poor financial management. To ask us, as citizens who contribute massively to this £31m grant, to pay even more to have the privilege of seeing a tiny proportion of the inside of a palace we technically all own a small part of is, quite frankly, appalling. It is those household staff with the remit of ensuring the funds are distributed appropriately that should be required to find a way of plugging their shortfall. This should most certainly be done in a way that does not mean that the public suffer even more.

Whatever your beliefs about the monarchy, it is a slap in the face to know that you should have to pay to visit a house that you are helping to fund. This house, filled with impressive art collections, and architecture of enviable grandness is just one of several that is given to the Monarchy and paid for with our taxes. If we are to truly end the financial mismanagement within the Royal Household, there is one clear solution: stop using public money to prop up this out-dated and useless institution.

Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures

Photo © 2009 Arthur Picton

A 99p store in Wrexham had to call in police backup when their store was bombarded with shoppers seeking to make the most out of a rare half price sale at the bargain store. People will laugh and cry ‘what is this world coming to?’ but the sad reality is that, in these times of austerity, for some any chance of a saving cannot be missed.

With the shop’s lease expected to come to an end on January 28th, the store had made the decision to mark down all products to fifty pence, causing a surge in customers. However, following last-minute negotiations, the lease was extended and managers made the decision to return products to their normal prices. Stupidly, the management put this into effect in the middle of their opening hours, doubling their prices at midday, and understandably angering customers who had been queuing for nearly two hours.

When people are willingly squeezing themselves into a shop that has already exceeded its maximum safe capacity in order to get their hands on doubly discounted goods, it’s hard to disagree that something has gone wrong. It is far from the fault of the shopper, however. The Government’s programme of austerity is forcing people into harsh economic difficulties, resulting in the need to look for the cheapest way of financing their lives. If that means forcing yourself into an overcrowded shop, well, desperate times call for desperate measures. Anything that makes the money last a bit longer is something that should be pursued.

Besides, it was a poor decision by the store’s management to decide to increase their prices in the middle of the day. It’s logical, for any customer, that if your shopping doubles in price from the moment you pick it up from the shelf to the moment it passes by the till scanner, then you’re going to be angry. You’ll feel cheated and lied to – your ten pound shop has suddenly become twenty pounds. This sale has been advertised for days and yet, after battling with other customers and patiently queuing for an inhuman amount of time, you’re being told that the terms have changed. I find it completely incomprehensible that any person could go through that situation and not be enraged.

So, what is this world coming to? A financially squeezed population trying to be economically sensible and save every penny they can, whilst the Government continues to make their situations harder and shop managers are solely concerned about how much money they make in a day. I think it’s pretty obvious what’s not right about this state of affairs.

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.

Farage May Be Tokenistic, But We Should Listen (This Time)

Photo © European Union 2013 - European Parliament

An unprecedented situation arose today: when The Telegraph published that Nigel Farage believes the UK should welcome refugees from the Syrian conflict, a moment arose where the Green Party, the left, and UKIP, the right, were in agreement.

Almost three years since the beginning of the Syrian crisis and a large proportion of the Syrian population are either dead, militarised or displaced by the civil war. Yet, despite this, the British government and their official opposition remain adamant that the UK should not accept any refugees from the battle-torn state. Ignoring the massive demand placed on the neighbouring countries, especially Lebanon, and that the Syrian population must either leave their home and country or face their imminent death, the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems are refusing to help those in dire need of aid.

Hence, it does come as a real surprise when the leader of the UK Independence Party, renowned for his intolerance of migration and non-nationals, is the most high-profile figure calling for the UK to be more accepting. Despite the Green Party having called for this kind of action on Syria since the vote in Parliament, UKIP are being granted the real voice, due to their increasing success in the polls. Having caught on to this, Nigel Farage is making the most of it and he and his party are beginning to act as more of a pressure on the Government.

Attempting to find reconciliation for this confusion, however, can inevitably lead to some cynicism. Is it just a ploy by the UKIP leader to find some a policy that is popular with the British electorate? Perhaps it is just a way to soften the hardened perception of the party that they are nationalistic and racist. It is possible to find this as an answer: In the same article, the party leader maintained the position that we should limit the number of Eastern Europeans becoming resident in the UK. Trying to differentiate become immigrants and refugees, Farage implied that we have a duty to help those displaced by war and other humanitarian crises, which is entirely right, but that those immigrating for other reasons are undeserving of any support, regardless of the wider contexts of their lives.

And, again, I find myself in complete shock as I find myself in agreement with Tory politician, Andrew Brigden, who said “it’s purely political tokenism and it’s a policy put forward by…a tokenist politician.” Nigel Farage is simply doing this to strengthen his party’s image where the other parties look weak, and with the European elections on the horizon. He’s also chosen the Christmas period, when the other parties are fairly quiet (with the exception of Cameron who is busy being criticised in flood-stricken Yalding) to make this bold announcement. It’s all part of his recipe to gain a positive perception of his party. With people becoming tired of the three governmental parties, they are looking for alternatives and with UKIP tapping into their fears on immigration, distrust of Europe and now some compassionate ground for Syrian refugees, there is a potential for a far more popular UKIP here.

However, even if we are to be cynical of Farage’s motives, his is a policy we must also support. There has been a distinct lack of support for Syrian civilians throughout the conflict from the UK. We have shouted at Assad and threatened terrorist organisations who have used the conflict to their advantage. We have offered non-lethal support and humanitarian aid. But the conflict continues and people continue to lose their homes and their lives. If we really want to help the Syrian people, we need to help end the conflict and help every civilian return to a normal peaceful life.

Switzerland Begins Assault on Excessive Pay

Photo by 1:12 Initiative for Fair Play

Switzerland are to vote in a referendum on whether to cap pay ratios in organisations at 12:1. This is in addition to previously passed legislation that reduces the number of bonuses granted to senior executives. What we see here is nothing less than a sensible progressive policy.

Instigated by the Swiss Young Socialists, the referendum is a direct result of a petition that gained the support of over 100,000 people. This tremendous declaration of public agreement demonstrates widespread satisfaction with what is increasingly becoming the acceptable status quo: greedy capitalist executives taking more than their fair share. In this sense, Switzerland is leading the way in effectively challenging a system that allows a greedy few to get more, more, more. This is not an unreasonable or unfeasible demand. As Europeans continue to be stifled by austerity measures, we should continue to seek opportunities to garner funds that will help our Government's to make it easier for people to live.

The situation seems even less nonsensical when you put it in terms of statistics. To introduce a pay ratio of 12:1 in the UK would be to set a maximum salary of around £148,000. That's hardly on the brink of an austere budget. Currently, it's more than the Prime Minister's base salary - if the person who, arguably, has the hardest job in the country can only be paid £140,000, it makes no sense that people who do less difficult and liable jobs earn so much more. I'd welcome some reasoning as to why CEOs and footballers can earn eight-figure salaries. Furthermore, what does that money pay for?

Additionally, the maximum wage would be in comparison to a worker paid only the minimum wage of £6.31, for 37.5 hours work a week. It's now widely believed that, in a society where the rate of inflation increases faster than wages, this wage is no longer enough for people to get by healthily or comfortably. What we must see introduced is a living wage: a wage that fluctuates with the economy, so that no person is ever stuck on a wage that becomes more and more difficult to support a life with. When you live in a society where people are no longer able to afford the bare basics, it seems ludicrous that some people would be outraged at the idea that they might only earn ten times more than their lowest-paid measly employee.

However, the situation looks even worse when you look at what the money can afford, rather than just the pay ratios. For example, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Birmingham earns around £372,000 this year, along with some other 'perks' that come with the job. That's only a meagre £7000 a week; incidentally, enough in a month to pay off the cost of a three-year degree course (even with the increased £9000 fees that he recommended were introduced). But to add salt to the wound, in two weeks the Vice-Chancellor earns more money than his lowest-paid employee does in a year. 

It is for this reason that what Switzerland is doing is highly commendable. If this is how much someone earning less than half a million a year can afford, imagine what the CEOs can pay for on a daily basis. We must tackle this deeply unfair equality and find some way for that money to be put to a better use, like increasing the wages of the lowest-paid. 

Harley Miller isn’t the only immigrant being deported

Photo by David McKelvey

There has been a certain furore on the internet over the deportation of a particular well-acclaimed Australian woman. 

With two masters degrees and her considerable input into our NHS system, it is understandable that people would get angry over the Border Agency’s demand for her to pack her bags and leave. Shared internationally via Facebook, her experience is rightly identified as an abomination, but why is it that this outcry is only deserving of a middle-class professional white woman?

There’s no denying that the situation that Harley Miller is facing is a horrible one to be put in: to suddenly receive a letter denying your application to stay in the UK after 9 years, to lose your job and to be told that you must leave within 28 days. However, the truth is that this happens to people on a far worse scale more often than we hear about it. Immigrants from across the world look to the UK for a better way of life, away from discrimination, from tyrannies and from war zones. Away from a failing economy, a tiny job market and poor standards of living. Put yourself in their shoes and I can guarantee you would want better than that.

The irony about those who oppose immigration is the complete contradiction they pose in their rhetoric. Individuals should strive towards personal success, using all the resources available to them to gain a better standard of life, say the Conservatives. The only thing holding people back is themselves, say the Conservatives. It’s their own fault that they’re living in impoverished conditions, say the Conservatives. Ignoring the fact that this is what most people do anyway, it appears that these same aspirations must not apply to immigrants. Most immigrants will come to the UK for a better standard of life, and who can blame them? Unfortunately for them, their better way of life involves constant xenophobia, fear of deportation and the additional role as a scapegoat. It’s a hard price to pay for a more comfortable life.

Yet, the media don’t write about these people being deported, and, thus, neither do the public hear about them. So when we get up-in-arms about Harley Miller’s deportation, step back and think of these poor immigrants who have are facing constant harassment and the fearful prospects that our international friends face daily.

Immigrants aren’t our enemies. Immigrants aren’t even something we should ‘tolerate’. Immigrants are human beings whom we should embrace. They bring multiculturalism to our country, they teach us of their culture, they bring us some new flavour to our lives. They provide us friends at university and at work, they provide business and they contribute to the tax system. Overall, immigrants provide more benefits to the UK than what they get back, and the papers (and the British as a result) don’t give them the credit or respect that they deserve. Regardless of where these people are from, they give the UK something we would never want to lose.

Luckily for Harley Miller, she’ll return to Australia with her two masters degrees and nine-years of medical experience in the NHS behind her. She’ll return to a tolerant and accepting country with no fear of persecution. The money she’ll earn from the sale of her house in the UK will allow her to instantly buy a new one in Australia. It’s a shame that’s not the case for most deported immigrants.

Last Night's Protest was More Than Fireworks at the Palace

Photo of Anonymous Protest in Birmingham (January 2013) by Victoria Kettlewell

It is far from the status quo, but anti-austerity protestors are beginning to find their feet in the world. 

Anonymous activists and supporters took to London and other cities across the world last night to demonstrate their increasing anger and frustration with the longstanding ruling elite. Among them was Russell Brand, recently announced a revolutionary, and Caroline Lucas. Green MP for Brighton.

Protestors took to central London last night smartly donning the mask inspired by Guy Fawkes beginning a Bonfire to Austerity (literally) on Westminster Bridge. Their protest was one of many over recent years that aims to highlight the corruption of mainstream politics, the disgusting destruction of the environment and the malice of the banking industry. These are the people that Russell Brand gave an increased public voice for last week in his widely watched interview with Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight.

These are incredibly important points; as dissatisfaction with politics continue, and people become more apathetic with the three untrustworthy options they are presented with, an alternative is necessary: a revolution. Now, perhaps we’re not talking about a full-scale French-Revolutionesque enactment, but we are talking about, as Brand put it, a ‘revolution of consciousness’ where people become vastly more aware of the atrocities and unethical attitudes of the government acting in their name. This is what will get us real change, whether this be through a new political party like the Greens, or through a new form of political control and governance it does not matter.  Unfortunately, this wanted effect on our consciousness and thought is difficult when those who most shape it are those who seek to retain the current power structures – the media – who are cozied up in the beds of the powerful.

Anti-austerity and anti-government protesters are stuck in a terribly biased situation. The media will want to run negative piece after negative piece and the Government of the day will simply ignore such arguments. When the opposition, who so profoundly announce support for their aims (like taxing the rich more heavily and imposing more regulation on the banking industry), gains Governmental control, still nothing will change. And while the population tacitly grants its support by voting in an election, nothing will change. A minority force like Anonymous is powerless by itself, but has no major player on their side.

It comes as no surprise that the right-wing media focus on the slightly more obstructive and violent methods adopted by a minority of protestors last night, hence detracting from the real message intended. The Daily Mail leads with ‘Funnyman-turned-activist joins protestors as they aim fireworks at Buckingham Palace’, for example. The media sets out to shut down minorities, and to dissuade against anything that challenges what is the status quo. One would like to think that this is regardless of newspapers, but this is shockingly, and sadly, untrue.

Now, certainly, the danger involved in setting off a firework in a very crowded space and towards a residential building makes the act ridiculous here. But we must remember that behind every method there is a genuine message: here it is that we must stop propping up our Monarchy using public funds when people are dying in the streets with no money, no home and no support.

Last night’s protest in London, and across the globe, was historic for the sheer number of anti-government protestors that assembled for it. Adorning the face of Guy Fawkes, protestors associated themselves with a force for change and challenging the establishment. Their next task is to rid themselves of those who dirty their image through violence and start recruiting more members of the public.

The Cull is About Killing Badgers, Not Scientific Evidence

 Image by The Green Party

The controversial badger cull trial has failed to meet its targets, so Tory logic says that the trial should be extended by three weeks in order to ensure those targets are met.

Widely condemned, the six week badger cull being piloted in West Somerset and Gloucestershire attempts to discern how effective, humane and safe a cull would be if later implemented across England. Working on a quota, those who have been granted a license to kill the badgers in Somerset are now to be given an additional six weeks to make sure they kill the right amount.

This is a ridiculous move by the Government. The trial cull has already been riddled with failure, uncertainty and inaccuracies and the questions the government want answered have most definitely been unanswered. Only a short amount of time after the cull was initiated, the Government revised their figures on the number of badgers in the area, reducing them. How can any experiment be undertaken if the full facts aren’t known?

Ludicrously, the government is attempting to blame the badgers for their failure with Owen Paterson saying that the badgers ‘moved the goalposts.’ How have they done this? By doing what nature tells them to do: responding to the weather, moving away from danger and breeding. These are hardly unexpected moves from the enemies, with scientists already having warned the Government of these complications if they were to press on with this disgusting policy.

Yet, the Government believes that this is reason enough to extend the cull, ignoring the fact that it is factors like these that help to determine the effectiveness of their trial. The Government are ignoring the difficulties that a cull faces and are only concerned with the number of badgers are killed. It is more than apparent that when this quota has been met, the Government will claim the cull a success, as they already have done despite not reaching the numbers, and will begin rolling out the programme across England on the basis of this ‘evidence.’

In addition, protest groups in the area have noted that not all badgers have been killed humanely (using the Government’s definition), with some being trapped in cages before being shot at point-blank. The cull requires that badgers are killed while freely roaming. This highlights that another of the requirements of this cull has already been failed, in a closely-monitored trial, suggesting that if it were to be reproduced nationally there would be many more instances of badgers killed by inhumane methods. Furthermore, one of the arguments against vaccinating badgers against bTB was how difficult they are to capture, but if the Government is catching badgers in cages to shoot them, then they can catch badgers in cages to vaccinate them.

The Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett, rightly called out Owen Paterson and Defra for continuously 'changing the rules' and preferring 'a scribbled on the back of an envelope, ignoring the facts approach.'

It can only be concluded that the badger cull is a dangerous move for the Government that goes against the will of the public and the expert recommendations of the scientific community. It does not fulfil their requirements and is simply a token gesture to farmers who are worried about losing a bit of capital. Hence, the Government should begin looking at alternative measures to tackle Bovine Tuberculosis, such as the vaccination, which have helped Scotland to achieve its Bovine TB-free status.

UKIP is beginning to leave its immature side behind

Photo by Euro Realist Newsletter

 
In the wake of the UKIP conference in Westminster this weekend, the party and its leadership seem to be showing a conscious desire to mature in the minds of UK voters. The controversial party has been subject to ridicule and deconstructive attacks since their success in the council elections this year, as the population responded to their rise in popularity and other parties launch an offensive against an increasingly popular party that steals votes from them. Yet, recent news shows that UKIP have a strong wish to establish themselves as a serious party, sensitive to the population's views, and not just one of extreme views.

Nothing makes this more apparent than the exit from the increased condemnation of Godfrey Bloom from his own party, and his decision to step down as a representative of the party in the European parliament. As a senior member of the party, Godfrey probably faced some behind-the-scenes nudging, with the ultimate result that he stepped down from the position, despite Farage stating that he didn't want to see Bloom 'hounded out of the party.' Essentially, Bloom was damaging the party's already tainted image - one that Farage wants to see UKIP leave behind - as the European and General elections approach in the next two years.

Now, the party are still far from establishing themselves as a major and dominant party in Westminster (though, not Europe), but the understanding that their political figures are making unpopular and offensive remarks and their response to this will reduce their outrageousness. And as this is reduced, their appeal to the public will grow. Couple that with their policies on HS2, Syria and (ill informed as it is) immigration, the chances of UKIP becoming a major player in Westminster politics is not too farfetched.

UKIP, like the Greens, are revelling in the dissatisfaction with the dominant three parties. Their rhetoric on Europe, immigration and their distance, politically, from Labour and the Tories make them an attractive choice to apathetic voters. As the support for the party increases, it will inspire further further support for the party, allowing them to break into Westminster.

The loss of Bloom as a representative of the party shows that UKIP want to drop the unnecessary criticism their party gets. The only criticism that the party is open to, now, is that which is focused on their policies, much like other parties.. UKIP have some ludicrous policies and terrible history but their prevalence n British politics is only around the corner and we should be prepared. With the party dropping the main perpetrator of their blunders, they're only bound to gain more respect, voter backing and success. 

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. 

Sorry Nick, but the Lib Dems Are Not the Solution to the UK’s Democracy

Photo by Dave Radcliffe

 

In his speech to the Liberal Democrat conference today, Nick Clegg made a series of remarks, the gist of which being that we, as a nation, are better off with his party in government.

Maintaining, despite the prolonged criticism, that entering a coalition with the Conservatives was the best deal for the UK, Clegg argued that he saved the UK from a number of policies wished to be implemented by his parliamentary partners. Claiming that their presence in Government allowed them to valiantly protect us from the evil Tory policies of the ‘Snooper’s Charter, ID Cards and tax breaks for the rich, Clegg seems to be suffering from a bout of convenient amnesia.

The Deputy Prime Minister forgot to mention how the party had conceded on their own policies in Government – settling for a referendum on Alternative Vote rather than the Single transferrable vote and the hike in tuition fees – and helped vote through horrendous cuts that have caused detriment to thousands across the country.

What the Liberal Democrat leader also omits is the fact that if the Liberal Democrats had not entered coalition with the party, we would have been protected from all these policy measures anyway, the party would have been saved from ridicule, and people would have far more respect for the party for sticking to their principles.

The Deputy Prime Minister also seems to hold the view that it his party that is driving down the votes down for Labour and the Tories, meaning that the probability of a hung parliament in future General Elections is higher. Hence he argues that the Liberal Democrats are needed in Government to hold back the Tory from their detrimental cuts, and Labour from their excessive spending. But again, he misses the point that it is not satisfaction with the Liberal Democrats, but mass dissatisfaction with the status quo that is the three main parties. After all, his party has been overtaken by UKIP in successive polls for months now.

Clegg’s speech today shows the new-found pragmatism and realisation that he wants his party to hold. Knowing that his party has no chance of electoral success, Clegg is attempting to pull his party to a bargaining position, understanding that in the next instance of a hung parliament, the party needs to raise its credibility by negotiating exactly what the Liberal Democrats want to achieve if part of a coalition Government. 

This is another ridiculous attempt by the party leader to reunite his party, distance himself from his coalition partners, and bring back support for his party by making promises that he'll curb the worst characteristics of the other parties. This ploy is completely transparent and it is not easy to be duped into this belief. The Liberal Democrats have made devastating mistakes under Nick Clegg's leadership and, much like the Tories and Labour, no amount of rhetoric will return the trust for the party has that been lost. 

Lib Dem Leader Claims Party Will ‘Moderate’ Labour and Tories in Coalition

Photo by Alex Folkes/Fishnik Photography

 

Appearing on the Andrew Marr show, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg commits his party to further coalitions with Labour or the Tories in the case of a hung parliament.

Clegg’s comments follow an internal poll that revealed that over half of members want the leader to strike a deal between their party and the Labour party if the 2015 General Election does not result in a majority government. The leader said that the Lib Dems were needed in government to make sure that neither Labour or the Tories would be ‘messing things up on their own all over again’ and that they would act as a moderating force.

The deputy prime minister also told Marr that the Lib Dems would have some demands if they entered a coalition, including increasing the tax-free personal allowance so that workers earning the minimum wage of £6.19 would be exempt for tax. When asked...

[Read more on H4TV]

Natalie Bennett Kicks Off Conference Season with Promising Speech

Kicking off the UK Party Conference Season, Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett set off continuous rounds of applause as she delivered a promising speech to her party in Brighton.

Bennett showed how in touch and relevant the Green Party is yesterday when she reiterated the Green Party’s long-standing policies on fracking, austerity and privatisation. The policies outlined by the leader are ones that stand well with the public and, once the party receives some national coverage of the event, will likely hit home in a large section of the population.

As the population continues to demonstrate dissatisfaction with the Tories, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, Natalie Bennett is right to point out how the Green Party (and Ukip) will stand in good stead at the next General Election, in 2015, as people look towards viable alternatives and realise that these parties have policies they can eagerly rally behind.

Perhaps the most attractive of the positions taken in her speech are her commitments to renationalising the railways (and Royal Mail), anti-fracking and anti-cuts. With people around the country suffering from the Government’s brutal cuts, a party that promises an honest and viable reprieve should receive a considerable amount of backing. However, the Green Party's stance on immigration and asylum seekers will not be welcomed by the general public, as people continue to perceive these issues as problems for the UK. Many YouGov polls have shown that people see immigration as a threat to the country as a whole but not to themselves - this completely highlights the effect of the British media, whereby people are led to believe that immigration is a problem when few are actually affected by it.

Natalie represents a party with few, and not irreconcilable, splits and, thus, has the good fortune of rare inner-party scuffles. This conference is already showing a party ready for the election, prepared with relevant policies and eager to support each other across the country. Much more will come out of this conference that all should be interested in.

For a detailed report of her speech, see below:

---

Natalie Bennett has opened the Green Party conference, the first of the UK party conference season, in Brighton today, immediately outlining the party’s continued opposition to fracking, austerity and military intervention in Syria.

At her second conference as leader of the party, after Caroline Lucas, the sole Green MP, stepped down from the position of leader last year, Bennett proclaimed the party’s continued resistance to the coalition Government’s austere programme.

Praising the actions of elected Green Party members, Bennett declared it a difficult situation for Brighton and Hove Council, the only Green council in the country, under the continued strains of ‘brutal’ Government cuts. Bennett congratulated the councillors for their work on introducing a living wage, pay ratios, ethical investment and great GCSE results under their authority. She also commended Jenny Jones on her appointment to the House of Lords before announcing that Jenny will take a platform of abolishing the House.

Criticism of Ukip and Nigel Farage…

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

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.