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.

Prime Minister's Questions - 4th September

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

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

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

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

Photo by Steve Rhodes 

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

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

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

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

The Vote Today Presents Us With a False Dichotomy

 Video provided by the BBC

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

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

Cameron thumping the desk rather too audibly. #Syria

— Politically Me (@Politically_Me_) August 29, 2013

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

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

— Nick Robinson (@bbcnickrobinson) August 29, 2013

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

— Caroline Lucas (@CarolineLucas) August 29, 2013

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

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

— Phillip Jones (@Phillip_D_Jones) August 29, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Richard Galpin (@Richardgalpin) August 29, 2013

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

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

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

Dear MP,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cameron Demands Complacency on Fracking

Photograph by Push Europe

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

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

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

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

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

Also posted on Redbrick.

Prime Minister’s Questions – 17th July

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

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

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.

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.

Prime Minister’s Questions – 30th January

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

In the middle of a week where Cameron’s premiership announced some of their biggest plans for expenditure, it was unsurprising that Prime Minister’s Questions focused on the pressing issue of the economy. Miliband stated that the Prime Minister had said in 2010 that the economy would have grown 5% by now. In the midst of news of the economy contracting by 0.1%, Cameron, unable to defend himself, spouted out the usual list of statistics and initiatives that he hopes to make Labour look bad with. Of course, it wouldn’t have been complete without Cameron blaming the previous Labour Government for the mess; a constant reminder that we would not be forgiven for forgetting. Miliband laughed the claims off, demanding that the “part-time chancellor” spent more time fixing the economy than trying to divert the new High Speed 2 route around his constituency, before drawing on the fact that this Government have borrowed £212bn more than they had promised. Aside from this, Cameron finally gave way to the weekly question on when he would visit a Foodbank, stating he would soon be visiting the one in his constituency. Cameron also made a mockery of George Galloway who asked a question on Syria by stating that wherever there is a brutal Arab dictator in the world, he’ll have the support of the honourable gentleman.”

Prime Minister’s Questions – 23rd January

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

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

“I’m not English, I’m British!”

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

The collective identity of a nation is fragile and, perhaps, malleable. Yet, in times of war, crisis and sport, it is one that unites a massive population and allows us to set aside our political differences. The fact that we think and feel differently is forgotten in these circumstances and instead, to an extent, we are able to come together as if one person and stand shoulder-to-shoulder in agreement, before proceeding into some form of patriotic endeavour. Take, for example, our coalition government during the Second World War. But what is it about national identity that makes us feel so united?

With the impending referenda on Scottish Independence in 2014 and the UK’s relationship with the EU (if the Conservative party win the 2015 General Election), political parties will be relying on this national identity to drum up support for their yes or no campaigns. In Scotland, it will be a question of “are you more proud to be British or Scottish?” We only need to look to the recent protests in Northern Ireland to note how important the aspect of national identity is to the electorate. It would appear that any threat to national identity is also a threat to personal identity. It is embedded in our cultural, language and ethnic differences. National parties such as the Scottish National Party, Sinn Fein and Plaid Cymru are also beginning to grow in prevalence.

In 1918, Woodrow Wilson, then president of the United States of America, argued that the best way to stop war from taking hold again was to grant the right to self-determination and end the control over smaller nations by empires and colonial rulers. This allowed countries such as Poland to regain its independence and saw the creation of countries such as Czechslovakia that were based on the ethnic identity of those who would be living in the state. The idea was that each country would respect each other’s sovereign rights. Ironically, it would seem, this bred tension between states and led to dangerous delusions of cultural superiority that then delivered the beginnings of the Second World War.

Hence, when Blair granted devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland during his first premiership, the concept of national self-determination was not new. In fact, it was rather modest of him to use referenda as a way of deciding when, in the past, independence or devolution of power have been simply handed over or fought out in a bloody war. However, we have approached an era of consent that tends towards allowing citizens to decide their own fate on their national identity, rather than the Government or, in some cases, colonial ruler to do so for them.

However, a national identity can be considered a strange concept. And if it is to unite a nation, how well does it do that? After all, we are sure to see in the Scottish referendum that not all of the electorate will see themselves as “Scottish”, but some will see themselves as “British”, both implying different relationships with their Government. Perhaps this is why the West Lothian question has never furthered. Are we in a state where “English” people see themselves more as “British” than “English”?

But as globalisation takes hold of the world, surely the concept of national identity is weakened, as we can never truly be unified on common characteristics in a more multicultural society, only in rejecting certain products or practices from other states, which can be quite rare. Maybe I’m not “English”. Maybe I’m not “British”. Maybe I’m not “European”. Perhaps, I’m simply “Earthish”.

Prime Minister's Questions - 16th January

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

A solemn start to the house as all parties paid tribute to military personnel and those involved in the day’s helicopter crash in London, sending wishes to their families. Debate swiftly moved on to the discussion of the UK’s position in Europe, a topic that dominated the day. Cameron stumbled over his words as he tried to defend the obvious split in the Tory party over the decision whilst Miliband attacked him for wanting to delay the decision for five years, creating uncertainty in Britain’s business sector. Ludicrously, the PM appeared to dodge a question from Labour on whether the country would remain signed up to the equal pay bill that makes it illegal to discriminate on pay. Cameron’s only consistent line of defense lay in that he wanted to propose a change to the EU and then get the British electorate’s consent on the manner and his tactic was solely on offense as defense, accusing the Labour party of creating the Governemnt’s problems at any opportunity. In response to the earlier helicopter crash, Cameron said it was very likely that regulations on flying through the increasing skyline of the city would be urgently reviewed.

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.

How Effective is Prime Minister’s Question Time?

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

It is a way of ascertaining the direction of the Government and the performance of the MPs we elect, but Prime Minister’s Question Time is beginning to appear more and more like a Punch and Judy show, with more drama yet less variation within it than Eastenders. The weekly half-hour session is repetitive and nothing more than a trashing session. However, week after week, we continue to rely on it as a tool for scrutinising our representatives.

It is all too common that we see Miliband and Cameron calling each other less than imaginative names across the House of Commons – we probably mutter something more imaginative under our breaths at the mere mention of their names – whilst attacking each other’s policies. I’ve seen some supposed behavioural problems in classrooms before and nothing compares to the continual rowdy nature of the House. It’s too regular an occurrence that the Speaker has to step in and embarrass a member and quieten the House down before they are kept behind the bell.

However, aside from the poor use of nicknaming and insults, the House is beginning to get a bit repetitive. Labour attack the Tories for being “out of touch”, “on the side of the rich” and having terrible economic policies, whilst the Tories attack Labour for being “out of touch”, “on the side of the lazy” and wanting to increase the deficit, and this happens time and time again. The same phrases get churned out, the same business gets discussed – it’s no Royal Variety Show in there. Somehow, however, they manage to suppose a different slant on the discussion; Labour begin their questions about the NHS, the Leveson Inquiry or welfare reforms, but it always returns to an angry offensive against the economic policies of the Tory party; that’s Capitalism for you. Continually slating each other’s policies only amounts to engineered campaigning for the next General Election; is it a debate on an issue that effects the population, or on which party has the better policy? The latter seems a bit more believable.

Furthermore, it’s a rare occurrence that you see somebody stand up and honestly say “my constituents” when referring to a particular opinion they are presenting to the house. Despite being elected representatives of sixty million people, Prime Minister’s Question Time only serves to demonstrate how little they represent their people. Occasionally, you do see the odd MP stand up against their party-line, but even within the coalition (with their opposing ideological perspectives), it is too risky a move to make if they are scared of losing their party membership. Yet, according to Total Politics, of sixty million people, only around three-hundred and fifty thousand members of the public actually tune into the show. With the exception of those who catch the show on catch-up or via snippets on the news, less than five percent of the population choose the question time as a source of keeping account of their representatives. As an indication, we can only assume that less know of the ability to watch other debates live on BBC Parliament, or even visit Parliament and watch the debates in the houses themselves.

Prime Minister’s Question Time serves only as a new source of humour, an indication of the worthlessness of our representatives in a representative democracy and a sense of the democratic deficit that the UK population has. Perhaps in the future, the show will become more worthwhile but, in its current set-up, it is merely a tool of amusement, pretend accountability and continuous party-campaigning.

 

Also published on Backbench and Redbrick

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 – 12th December

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

The house just couldn’t keep quiet this week and with that came a feeling of having returned to a classroom of schoolboys. Even our infamous Speaker couldn’t get the house to shut up, so there was a constant jeering, perhaps more annoying than the vuvuzelas of the 2010 Football World Cup. Cameron and Miliband referred to each other as bullies and there certainly was some use of catchphrases. Red-faced Cameron was asked if he had “wrecked a restaurant recently” whilst confidence-lacking Miliband had his shadow chancellor attacked as a bully who couldn’t take it in return. It was an elongated and highly repetitive argument of welfare cuts and deficit reduction over welfare increase and increased borrowing. Where Cameron tried to take a Robin Hood angle, Miliband shot him down, stating that the Tory donors stamped their feet and got what they wanted. Cameron shortly replied that if it weren’t for the Labour donors, Miliband wouldn’t be in his position. Neither side won – there was just simply bulldozing of either side’s policies. Other MPs ravaged the PM with questions on the “snooper’s charter” saying the Government would do more spying than their media friends in Wapping, whilst others showed off their historical expertise in asking whether the Government were going to repeal the Magna Carta of 1297. Scottish MPs showed off and asked whether the Government would be copying them in their successes, whereas Northern Irish MPs asked the PM to condemn the violence in Belfast. Wales was quiet this week.

Prime Minister’s Questions – 5th December

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

This week, MPs began Prime Minister’s Question Time by congratulating William on the success of his natural bodily functions, reminding us of the unforgettable, that William and Kate are expecting a baby. Eventually we moved onto the more important topics (one that actually affects our daily lives) of the implementation of the Leveson recommendations, where the PM and the Government were criticised for their apparent and backstabbing refusal to implement statutory requirements for an independent regulation system – a system that would seem intuitive to have to most people. Instead, Cameron says he has trust in the editors that they can establish that themselves and, by that, he means, he doesn’t want to interfere with his close friends and sponsors, only waste our money on an inquiry he won’t adhere to, whilst cutting services that we need, like the NHS. Obviously not enough money was spent on maths in their day, because neither Miliband nor Cameron seemed to agree on any statistics, both quoting different sets form the IMF and the OBR, and telling those opposite them they were constantly wrong. Cameron accused Labour of cutting the NHS and said the Tories were increasing the budget; Miliband accused the Tories of cutting the NHS and said Labour increased the budget. Somebody is right, but only the IMF knows that. PMQs seem to just set the precedent for the later Autumn statement, that outlined that the deficit has been reduced by 25% by deciding not to dish out any money any more.

 

Also posted 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

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.