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.

Racism as Populism

The Tories are desperate to find a scapegoat, and distraction, for their failing economic program and their tactics are sickening. This week’s stop and searches, ordered by the Home Office, represent a rising prominence of institutionalised racism. In the week that Doreen Lawrence was made a peer vowing to tackle racism whilst in Parliament, the Government have succeeded in showing that nothing has changed when it comes to racial prejudice.

Stop and Search has been an ever-present display of racial profiling and unwarranted bigotry since the very day of its inception in 1994. With black members of the public twenty-six times more likely to be stopped in the streets, it comes as no surprise that there is a common misconception that black people are the UK’s criminals. Yet, according to Parliament’s latest report on prison figures, only 26.2% of prisoners are from an ethnic minority, and 13.2% are Black or Black British. This is hardly representative. Looking at these statistics, it hardly comes as a surprise that of the 1.1 million stop and searches that took place between 2011 and 2012 only 10% resulted in arrest.

What the Government’s recent ‘crackdown on immigration’ forgets is that illegal immigrants cannot be defined by the colour of their skin. An illegal immigrant is any person that enters the country without permission and declaring that they have done so - not a black person. A white American could just as easily be an illegal immigrant as an Ethiopian. Despite this, their recent anti-immigration tactics involve prowling areas of the country where there is a higher proportion of black people, and then demanding information and compliance from, in majority, black people. You’d be mistaken for thinking that non-white people could be British!

The Government is intent on using scare tactics to drive away anyone who threatens the homogeneity that Britons should have. In the run-up to the General Election and the wake of the dramatic increase for supporters of the EDL and Ukip, who champion British exclusiveness, the Tories have knowingly introduced populist policies. These are most certainly designed to round up any lost supporters to their ideologically similar counterparts and unify the country around an issue that appeals to all – an issue that has been constructed by the media (by the demands of politicians) to seem even more widespread, and with potentially disastrous consequences, than it is. As Derek Laud describes it, the “government is drowning in the vulgarity of opportunistic spin-doctors.”

This is certainly not good news for the Tories’ coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, who promote tolerance (a relatively negative word as it is – what is there to ‘tolerate’?), inclusiveness and celebration of diversity. Allegedly, senior politicians within the party, Nick Clegg and Jeremy Browne (Home Office Minister) were not made aware of the intentions of the Conservative Party in their campaign against immigration figures. This is just another smack in the face for their unwitting and ill-used ‘partners’.

Whilst the Conservatives and the mainstream media buddy up to provoke black citizens and migrants into going ‘home’, they are creating a problem that never existed. They are creating racial tensions in communities, breeding the misnomer that black people are not British and are immigrants and that immigration is a key issue that desperately needs to be tackled.

The only positive that this disgusting display of racial prejudice has brought out is the willingness of people across the country uniting to openly criticise and protest the blatant racism of ‘the nasty party’.

A Tory Guide to Getting Quick Cash

Image by Palestine Solidarity Campaign

In times of economic crisis, the Conservatives usually find themselves in Government (cheekily proclaiming themselves the ‘natural party’) and with the task of cutting the deficit and balancing the books. This is a task they have long developed a strategy for – if you can’t cut the services, privatise them – easy. Unsurprisingly, this is exactly the kind of strategy that has been in place since the 2010 General Election win.

They are a party of supposed economic credibility; they can decrease the expenditure and debt of the country. But the tactic of privatisation is just an easy way of getting quick cash; if you can sell something for a good enough price, you’re going to get the money much quicker than if you persevered and waited for the profit (if there even is one) to add up. Take some examples that have come out recently: student loans debt, Royal Mail, blood plasma and, more recently, social services. Here we have a wide range of government-provided but publicly-funded services that are part of the majority of society’s everyday lives. These institutions arguably provide the backbone of UK stability and health, but the government is proposing to sell them off to possibly reckless profit-orientated major corporations.

The latter case, the idea of privatising the social services, is simply abhorrent. These services help the most vulnerable children in society, protecting them from harm and helping to enable themselves to get a better lifestyle. Whilst publicly run, this is exactly the kind of service the government should be funding and providing; a government should be concerned about the welfare of its paying citizens and working on behalf of its citizens. To grant this service to a major corporation is to ignore the fact that most companies have a primary interest in raising as much money as they can as quickly as they can. As long as they provide a legally compliant service, that’s as high as they will aim, whilst asking for extortionate price. We are only able to hope that, if the sale does indeed go ahead, that the resulting managers of the social services aren’t of detriment to those who desperately need them.

This isn’t just a made-up negative judgement; it’s fact. We saw earlier this week how security companies such as Serco and G4S have been overcharging the government and, thus, the public for the installation and monitoring of security tags on offenders. Our train providers are among the most expensive in Europe. And, there’s the ever-growing problem of companies moving abroad to rake in cheap labour, destroying jobs back in the UK. In a capitalist economy, it should come as no surprise that corporations only exist to make as much money off their consumer as they can get away with. They may not even care how their services are used, only that they are gaining some money in the process. Take for example, the reports that Palestinian children are being held and, allegedly, tortured, in G4S prisons in Israel. They claim they are not breaking “international law” but surely their actions are still immoral.

But this description can surely be applied to the Tory government too. Their strategy of making cuts and selling companies is simply a way of getting as much money back as they can almost ignoring the detrimental side-effects it may have on society. Meanwhile, they will report that borrowing has fallen, the deficit has fallen, and the Government is recovering the UK’s economy. Is this really the case or just an illusion?

Prime Minister’s Questions – 17th July

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

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

Remembering Thatcher

 Image by Chris Beckett

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

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

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

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

Prime Minister's Questions - 26th June

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

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

Prime Minister's Questions - 19th June

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

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

Examinations; the Be All and End All?

Image by Jack Hynes

How are private schools so different from state schools that their students don’t quite understand the nature and purpose of education? Well, at the least, it would appear that they fail to notice that good assessment does not need to be in the form of an examination and that the education system has accomplishments outside of statistical academic success. However, the coalition government is unveiling a wide range of reforms which ignore these facts, yet massively overhaul the current system.

Yesterday’s announcement by the Government is demonstrable of the belief in the importance of statistics that is held by the commanding body of Parliament. Entirely focused on the results and the value of qualifications, the new reforms proposed by Michael Gove neglect the wider reasons for the education system. Due to come into practice in 2015, the massive changes to GCSEs involve removing coursework, creating one-single exam at the end of the course and changing the grading system from letters (A* to U) to numbers (1 to 8). Aside from this, is a change in the curriculum to focus more on British produce and history; to me, an obvious attempt, to beam beliefs of British superiority into students’ minds, yet it will only make us look uneducated and ignorant to the international community.

Firstly, underlying these changes is the constant narrative that current GCSEs are just too easy – hence, if you fail, you’re an idiot. Why? Well, the inclusion of coursework makes them even easier, so that should be removed. Coursework’s “uncontrolled” nature, prolonged construction period and detailed feedback and help from lecturers makes them simple to pass. Also, I don’t quite understand the change in how GCSEs are graded will make any difference only in that it will devalue any “old-style” letter-graded GCSEs with new number-graded GCSEs being seen as more stringent, tough and valuable and, hence, those with high-grades in the new-style GCSEs are more likely to be seen favourably. Even if we were to accept the premise that old-style GCSEs aren’t hard enough and were easy to pass, it isn’t my fault that I was a student during that system, and why should I have to pay for that?

However, these reforms completely overlook the wider and more positive consequences of our education system. Coursework is vital for many people to help develop their written, independent and research skills that are so important in later life; after all, how often are you likely to be subject to a short examination (memory test) in the general workplace, instead of using these written or other practical skills. I’m sure most companies would find much more value in asking you to write a report, do some research, or apply your practical skills to a task, rather than to sit down in silence for a prolonged amount of time and write an extended response to an overly specific question or statement with no consultation. Removing coursework in favour of single examinations ignores this fact, and makes it much harder for individuals to develop these vital skills. In addition to this, to allow only a single examination in each subject (with those who re-sit looked down upon) will inevitably allow the system to fail those who make one mistake. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone gets a second chance; the new GCSE system will not allow this.

However, it is ludicrous that the Government believes that removing coursework and introducing single examinations would increase results and make us one of the best educating nations in the world. It is fact that people learn in different ways, and that people respond to pressure in different ways. Of course, some people work well in examinations and others work well undertaking research and this is a condition of our human nature. All individuals are different, so to treat them all the same is to ignore that fact. Whereas some people would prefer the increased pressure of an examination, it is bound to destroy and worsen the prospects of others. There are many students who are incredibly intelligent, can write well and fluently, but do not do well in examinations due to the increased pressure, unnatural conditions and, in some cases, simply the wrong question; I beg on David Cameron to sit my recent philosophy examination on whether things that are not temporally present exist – then we can see how much he remembers from his Oxford PPE degree.

You can see why I think that the government only care about results and not the people in between; students are just part of that endless manufacturing line that prepares them for the working world where we are analysed by a jumble of letters (or numbers) next to our name and our workplace adequacy assessed. If your two-sheet piece of paper doesn’t have the right symbols, you’re out, slammed into unemployment or into low-paid employment and then blamed for your lack of success. Surely, this is quite the opposite of what the Government really wants?

Legislation is Only Half the Battle for Equality

Image by Michael Fleshman

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

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

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

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

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

Prime Minister’s Questions – 15th May

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

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

The Death of Margaret Thatcher

  Image by Highways Agency

I’m a little late to the mark, but the death of Margaret Thatcher troubled me. As a “lefty”, I was massively against the entirety of her neoliberal and conservative policies and I look back on the impact of the era as destructive and causing huge inequalities. However, the announcement of her death yesterday is not something I have or ever will celebrate. It is the reverence and respect that comes with any death that translates into proportional quietness. The solemn expression of a “goodbye” is all that is necessary. Yet this is not what we saw.

The death of any person, regardless of their life, is not something that should be celebrated. However, as the news broke, people, parties and groups across the world cheered and planned parties as they experienced happiness in the loss of a life. This is inherently despicable behaviour. By all means, celebrate the downfall of a politician you disagreed with, but not their death. This woman’s downfall was in 1990, not yesterday. She left the political sphere and retreated to a personal and private life, one we had no right to intrude upon. You may argue that I didn’t live through the 1980s and I don’t understand what she did to the country. You’re right, I didn’t and I might not, but I know that death is not a thing to be celebrated.

This woman had a family, loved ones, friends, supporters, like you and I. If your mother, wife, friend died, how would you feel if the neighbours you’ve always feuded with held a street party and cheered as the ambulance carted her away? You wouldn’t. Now imagine this is what is happening to her family and friends and understand that the reaction they are witnessing in street parties (above) and at NUS national conference (below); it is unfair, it is upsetting and it is unnerving.

I am appalled to hear that #nusnc13 cheered the death of Maggie T. Whether you loved or loathed her, this is just disrespectful. #poorform
— Flo Hawking (@flohawking) April 8, 2013

You can celebrate the downfall of the politician, but not the death of a human being.

Baroness Margaret Thatcher, an 87 year old lady, 1925-2013: Rest In Peace.

Waging War on the Welfare State

Image by Helen Cobain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prime Minister’s Questions – 20th March

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

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

Prime Minister's Questions - 6th March

Image by Victoria Kettlewell

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

Where Education Fails

Photo by Victoria Kettlewell

Gove’s plans to scrap certain GCSEs in return for the English Baccalaureate was apparently lacking in quality this week as he announced his failure in the House of Commons. Calling them a “bridge too far”, we saw another U-turn in Government policy and a fortunate concession to Labour and teaching Unions who rightfully expressed concerns and fear at the proposals. Unfortunately, however, this is just one change of many that was being pushed through the Houses of Parliament. Alongside this, there are plans to make GCSEs and A-Levels much more rigorous and demanding whilst changing the curriculum dramatically. Schools are being told that the current system for exams are too easy and that students need to be pushed harder and harder; the stress is on the outcomes of exams.

At a recent lecture at the University of Birmingham, Anthony Seldon, author of famous biographies of Blair, argued that the Government (and schools) focus far too much on the measurable factor of qualifications gained rather than the personal development of the individual who spends up to seven years in their institution. Tested solely on their ability to soak up knowledge and regurgitate it on a piece of paper (perhaps in a certain style), schools seem lacking in building up confidence skills, creativity and that flair of determination that you would hope to see in every student as a result. Instead, like battery hens, students are pushed through a system of education where their sole purpose is to gain good grades so their school can demonstrate their “excellence” whilst the student is then pushed along on the factory line for the next institution.

Ironically, it would seem, this kind of approach to pushing children through education is one that causes demotivation, dissatisfaction and, in some cases, anti-establishmentarianism. Simply being pushed by their “superiors” to achieve A-grades in the core subjects, it is often heard that a lack of A-grades simply translates to a lack of success. Hence, if you don’t achieve A-grades, you are a failure and you will get nowhere in your life. Yet, this could just end up as a self-fulfilling prophecy; being told you will achieve nothing means you will achieve nothing. You might be putting your all into it, but being told that there’s no point because you’ll get nowhere – why not just give up?

Meanwhile, the different learning styles of individuals are overlooked; alternative qualifications such as BTECs and apprenticeships are deemed inferior, “for stupid people”. Apprenticeships are not accepted on UCAS, and many universities and employers overlook or do not display the criteria in any other form than A-Levels. Despite being more specialised in their area, those with BTEC or similar qualifications are told their qualifications are not of equal worth to A-Levels. This is quite simply outrageous.

Of course, this article is not true of every educational institution. There are many across the country that do realise the full potential of individuals and do accept the qualifications that others are too elitist to do so; those whom do give people a chance without judgement. These are the places we should be drawing inspiration for. It is argued that those who are given a chance to strive for something and work at their rate learn better and faster than those are forced into a strict schedule and discipline. Surely, these children would become passionate about a certain field, develop for that field and become better workers.

In the current British system of education, there are many flaws that do need fixing. You can argue that exams may be too easy and that different exam boards are competing for schools by offering lower boundaries for grades, but the truth is that full potential can be realised through the self-development of individuals. Rather than focusing on exam grades, focus on their passions, their skills and their needs.

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.

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

Gasp! Shock! Horror!

Photo by Staffs Live on Flickr

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Also published on Redbrick