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.
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.
The day after a vote that Diane Abbott argued proved that “the arch of history bends slowly, but it bends towards justice”, Prime Minister’s Questions unsurprisingly did not show any criticism for the policy of same-sex marriage, a fantastic decision to moving towards equality in society shown by many members of all parties across the house. The debate swiftly moved into one on the ‘bedroom tax’. Cameron refuted claims that it was a tax, instead dubbing it a benefit. Miliband shook this defence off effectively, questioning the case that paying £25 more a week due to Government policies is not considered a tax. Rightly, it was raised across the Labour benches that this policy would hit those with disabled members of their family hardest. Cameron, again, seemed unable to defend himself, reversing questions towards Miliband. After criticisms almost amounting to corruption of the PM, Cameron accused Miliband of wanting to be the “fairy godmother” to trade unionists. One Labour MP cynically asked whether the recently discovered remains of Richard III had been declared fit to work by ATOS, receiving laughs and cheers from around the house, even from Cameron. Yet, in the midst of the IFS’ announcement that they expected the Government to borrow £64 billion more than expected, what really resounded was Miliband’s description of the PM as “weak, incompetent and totally out of touch”
Protestors rally outside Starbucks in Birmingham City Centre
The right to protest is a fundamental and respected right of the United Kingdom’s democracy and over the past couple of years we have seen many protests of varied causes take place in cities and towns across the Isles. Carefully and tactically planned, the aims of these protests are clearly to try and create change by winning over those around them with their cause, gathering more supporters and influencing the public opinion as a whole. However, the opposite effect can often be the result; rather than join the cause, the public criticise the protestors for “disrupting the working day”.
The anti-cuts and anti-tax-evasion pressure group, Anonymous, protested in the city centre of Birmingham on Saturday 5th January. Demonstrating outside major high-street retailers and banks such as HSBC, Vodafone and BHS, the group rallied outside the Bullring Shopping Centre, causing the entire building to be locked down with shoppers stuck inside and outside waiting for them to disperse. Among those waiting outside was a shop-owner who complained to those protesting that they were interrupting his working day and causing him to lose money. Inside the shops, staff members barricaded the doors to stop those protesting from getting inside as customers were moved towards safety at the back of the shop. Commercial behaviour in Birmingham was brought to a standstill.
My guessing is if protesters who stormed @bullring had jobs they could afford to shop too. Try working and not disrupting my day.
Compassion can be felt all-round. There is some agreement with the cause that the cuts are hard and detrimental and that tax-evasion by major corporations is unjust and immoral and there is agreement that a protest should be held to demonstrate this anger as an effective way of raising awareness and rallying support. But there is disagreement over the method and tactics used by these pressure groups in order to do the former. The question raised is whether it is effective and fair to demonstrate outside the individual high street stores. It is arguable that it is neither and this is an opinion that many observers in the streets raise.
An apparent lack of consideration appears to prevail in the organisation of a protest outside a high-street. The fact that the employees of these companies have little or no say into the governance of the corporation as whole appears forgotten in the minds of protestors. Hence, the method of attacking individual shop stores is ineffective and often ignored by the decision-makers. In essence, the protestors are simply instilling fear in the hearts of the employees and customers of these shops as well as increasing a negative perception of themselves and their cause, creating the opposite of the desired effect.
However, the alternative (to protest outside the headquarters of the major corporations to the decision-makers themselves) is difficult. Usually these businesses are placed in locations far from the major public eye, reducing awareness-raising and there’s no way of knowing when the senior bosses are actually present at the headquarters to take note of the protestors concerns. Even if they are, it is not necessarily going to make any difference. Upon observation of previous examples (i.e. most protests outside the Houses of Parliament, Downing Street or Millbank), it is uncommon that we can see any direct effect on impending legislation.
The right to protest is one that should remain, but the ability and effectiveness of protests is minimal. Hence, the organisation of a protest must be more thoroughly considered before it is carried out, or the risk of making no effect but a diminishing level of support is highly likely. The protests witnessed in Birmingham and the comments during and after them simply show the disastrous effects of an ill-thought-out demonstration.
