Harley Miller isn’t the only immigrant being deported

Photo by David McKelvey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The Illiberal Reaction of the US Government to Snowden

  Image by Michael Fleshman
The revelations surrounding the National Security Agency (NSA) in the United States and the Global Communication Headquarters (GCHQ) in the United Kingdom show the disturbing penetration into people’s private lives that two of the “most liberal” Governments claim the authority for. It’s been nearly three weeks since The Guardian published the information that they had received from ex-CIA employee, Edward Snowden, much in the same way as information previously provided by WikiLeaks. This case continues to demonstrate the immense difficulties and dangers presented to those few whistle-blowers.

Positively, in this case, Snowden was well aware of the consequences of his actions and prepared his line of escape, flying to Hong Kong and taking temporary refuge there. Yet, it is a dismal state of affairs that a man should seek political asylum from such a “liberal” nation for something that amounts to accountability of a tax-paid scheme. The mass surveillance programs used by the NSA were not voted for by the US citizenship and do not solely pervade the home country, but also reaches out across the world in their attempts to spy on people and their governments. Now, I’m not saying that the US Government is the worst for invading privacy, but the secret nature of these operations make them ten times worse. At least in the countries that are renowned for their lack of privacy, they are renowned for it; you know what you’re getting there. Within the US, it was a different story; it was another case of the US deciding that liberty needed to be sacrificed in the name of security, without consulting their citizens on the issue.

Snowden faces three charges from the US Government: theft of government property, unauthorised communication of national defence information, and wilful communication of classified intelligence with an unauthorised person. It is easy to take issue with each of these charges. Firstly, the US Government works for US citizens, is paid for by US citizens and is elected by US citizens, so everything it creates and receives should surely be the property of US citizens. Surely the charge here then is synonymous with “theft of public property” or “theft of civilian property”. But, Snowden is a US civilian, and he can’t steal from himself and he’s not inhibiting others’ access to it – in fact, he’s making it more accessible – so can this charge be applied. I’d argue not, but this is most certainly not a view that the US Government or, perhaps, the courts will agree on. The other two charges follow on from this point; the Government were not authorised to intrude on people’s lives by those who have the authorisation – the public – so how was Snowden supposed to get authorisation from the public to communicate the Government’s secret work? Now, you may disagree with the fact that this information and operation does indeed belong to the US citizens but there remains a case for Government accountability and a warrant for the public to know what their Government is doing in their name.

The continued reaction by the US Government only serves to deepen the frustration and anger with the administration. In their desperation to shut Snowden’s mouth, gag him and take him away to Guantanamo Bay, they are making outlandish demands on the international community; not to harbour him, or to let him travel, unless it is back to the US. With joy, many countries have ignored this command from the self-proclaimed President of the World, as Hong Kong, Russia, Ecuador and Cuba rally behind Snowden. The US’ hope that they could get away with unilaterally enforcing security in the world has failed. They are deepening the cut by continuing their hostility, secrets and heavy-handedness.

Let us join in with the international solidarity for Edward Snowden who has performed an incredible and brave action that he should most certainly not be persecuted for.

Race/Religion ≠ Extremism

Image from ITV News

In the wake of the attack in Woolwich yesterday, the onslaught of racist and Islamophobic attacks was only to be expected and we were not proved wrong. However, this is not something we should have to expect; it is highly illogical. Assuming someone is an extremist because of their religion or race is like assuming that the tail you just saw go round the corner of the road belonged to a cat. It is true; there do exist Muslim extremists, but not everyone who adheres to Islam is a terrorist. Islam, as has been repeated time and time again, is a peaceful religion and Muslim leaders across the UK and the World appealed for calm and expressed regret. Members of the religion shamed those who acted in the name of their religion.

We must remember, also, that terrorism is not inevitably linked to Black Muslim Jihadist Extremists. Anders Breivik, responsible for the attacks in Norway in 2011, defined as a White Christian. IRA terrorists defined as White Christian. Furthermore, terrorism isn’t linked to religion at all, and even if it were, the attacks on Mosques and the burnings of the Qur’an we have seen in response to terrorism attacks can be considered terrorism attacks themselves. If terrorism is religiously-motivated damaging actions, then terrorism happens more in your life than you would care to think. But it is not. Terrorism is an abominable crime where persons use terror (physical, psychological and technological) to disrupt people’s lives, instil fear and, usually, make a political statement. As far as I know, no religion in the world dictates its followers to do any such thing.

Hence, to then launch savage racist attacks on Mosques and Muslim communities is preposterous. It is utterly incomprehensible that people believe that all Muslims, or Blacks, are behind these attacks and feel proud of the damage that has been done. Immigration is the cause of all of our terrorist problems, of course (You forget that immigration includes any non-British person who becomes resident in the UK, not just those that come from the Middle-East, Africa or Asia, or are Black – the Americans count as immigrants too).

No, we are all living people, many of us distraught at yesterday’s news and wanting to ensure it does not happen again, regardless of our race and religion.

Race and Religion do not equal extremism.

How Not to Protest Effectively

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 5^th 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.

— Mark Rice (@StaffsMark) January 5, 2013

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.

Also published on Backbench

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.

Why Do We Deny Democracy to Our Prisoners?

 

Photo by Lee Thompson

Prisoner voting seems to be a bit of a taboo topic and when you pose the question to most people, the initial response is usually a firm “no”. But on application of the various democratic principles that the UK upholds, and some convincing arguments, it begins to get a little difficult to defend that response.

The discussion comes at a time when Parliament have voted against lifting the blanket ban on voting rights for prisoners, despite this being illegal as defined by the European Court of Human Rights (expect a longer dragged out court case, and some prisoners attempting to sue) and the UK is, again, one of few Western States to have a blanket ban. Legally, the UK only needs to allow a minority of prisoners to vote, perhaps those serving sentences for minor theft, to comply with the European legislation, but last month the House of Commons voted overwhelmingly against increasing any voting rights for prisoners, leaving them disenfranchised as a result.

Proclaimed one of the most democratic countries in the world, it seems a little preposterous that the UK does deny these rights to our own citizens, especially when countries which are often criticized for their human rights, such as China, only restrict this right on the most serious crimes (where the prisoners are sentenced for death or a life sentence). In Germany, the law even encourages prisons to promote voting to inmates.

I can describe the UK’s ban only as wrong. To deny any person the right to have their say in their leadership and the policies they have to live under when they leave prison is simply unfair. Perhaps I could understand the ban on prisoners who had been convicted for serious crimes, such as terrorism or serial murder, but even then I’d feel a bit concerned about taking away their democratic rights. After all, they may have been convicted of a crime that they may not have initially agreed should be designated a crime, for example, those convicted of drug offences. A broad section of society disagrees that the use of drugs for recreational use should be an offence at all. Using your vote is your way of having a say in what should be deemed right and wrong by society.

Furthermore, these prisoners may continue to pay tax whilst serving if they are part of the prison workshop scheme. Surely, those who contribute to the economy, should also have a say in how their money is distributed within society. Denying the prisoner the right to vote would take away this possibility.

The UK often criticise other countries for their record on human rights, especially with their denial of universal suffrage, but are we able to talk about these issues if we do it ourselves? The idea of a democracy is to allow the rule of the masses, allowing society to direct the way forward for themselves, but denying a section of society that privilege is denying the full prospects of democracy. If we are one of the most democratic nations in the world, then this is a sad story for those which aren’t deemed very democratic.

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

Why So Anti-Love?

Image by Guillaume Paumier

Laws differ across the world and the sentences awarded to those who break them differ even more. But the “crime of homosexuality” is perhaps one of the most controversial. As the UK and the US seem to have same-sex marriage on the agenda, countries like France and Uganda appear to be heading in the opposite direction.

Despite a Tory back-bench rebellion extremely likely, the overwhelming support for same-sex marriage in the Commons and Scottish Parliament will guarantee that it will pass into law and the rights for LGBT people in Great Britain will be massively increased and put on a par with heterosexual rights. But it’s questionable as to why society can be so divisive in the first place; after all, surely the concept of love is equal among all, so the accessibility to affirming that should be too. Anti-homosexuality simply doesn’t make sense.

Thus, recent events in France and Uganda seem utterly preposterous. Hollande, France’s President, is rightfully pushing through a bill through parliament that will allow both same-sex marriages and adoption for same-sex couples. Yet, despite this being one of Hollande’s key election policies, seventy thousand took to the streets of Paris in protest and one thousand mayors signed a position in opposition. Perhaps the most ludicrous of suggestions (also raised by Lord Carey, ex-Archbishop of Canterbury) is that same-sex marriage could lead to polygamy – obviously all gay people cheat and want to marry lots of people at the same time. Love between two people of the same sex isn’t equivalent to love between two people of opposite sexes – gays need a lot more to satisfy their desires. Ridiculous!

Meanwhile, in Uganda, the Speaker of Parliament has despicably announced the “Christmas gift” of passing anti-homosexuality legislation. Otherwise known in the media as the “Kill the Gays bill”, the bill allows for the death sentence for those who commit the crime of so-called “aggravated homosexuality” or life imprisonment simply for being homosexual. Hence, options for gays in Uganda are either to live a heterosexual life, to hide their homosexuality or to seek asylum in another country. I’m sure you’ll agree that none of these options would be particularly appealing to you – why should you have to adapt your life, and hide your inner emotions, in order to escape imprisonment or death?

At present, only eleven states in the world allow same-sex couples to legally marry. Ten European states have a constitutional ban on it altogether. Same-sex marriage legislation began to pass through legislatures in the early 2000s – hopefully we can see more of this in the years to come.

Gasp! Shock! Horror!

Photo by Staffs Live on Flickr

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Also published on Redbrick

Choosing a Leader

Image by Cabinet Office on Flickr

It’s a funny thing choosing a leader for your country and essentially choosing someone to place your trust in to for a prolonged amount of time, with no real ability to recall your vote. It’s a big decision we must make, and most often one people end up regretting by the time the chosen one has finished dismantling the hard work that someone else has put in.

In the wake of Obama’s victory and re-election in the United States, it’s a little overlooked that we are now halfway through our Condemned Government (of course, unless by some stroke of luck, Parliament is closed) and that means we can officially count the days until we are certain their mandate will end. That wonderful time at which we can hold Clegg and Cameron to account and completely humiliate them with what will probably be a resounding Labour win is now closer than the time we voted them in (although this is arguable in itself.) The end is nearer than the beginning, although not exactly nigh yet.

It’s no secret that all of the parties are already planning their election campaigns for 2015, deciding who will lead their campaigns and what their manifestos and key policies will be, making predictions for what will happen over the next few years and be high on the agenda in 2015, so I’m going to make some of my own:

• Nick Clegg will be replaced as leader by Vince Cable either for the election or as a result of the election
• The PCC elections will show to have little support and little turnout and the decision will be reversed or reduced
• The Labour Party will not have tuition fees as a key policy or will only reduce fees by a small amount
• UKIP and the Green Party will see a small rise in support
• Labour will win an overwhelming majority, but still not match Blair’s 2001 majority. Lib Dems will lose a large number of seats and Nick Clegg will not win the Sheffield seat.
• The UK will enter another recession in 2013.
• Another European country using the Euro will collapse.
• There will be further military intervention in the Middle East, Syria or the Faulklands.

Some may seem far-fetched, and some might seem plain obvious. I think all of these are highly possible, but let’s see how the next two and a half years pan out, shall we?

Quit Badgering Me

Image by Fred Dawson

It’s not a good year for farmers. With exceedingly wet conditions (even for British records) crop harvests are at a low and fruit and veg prices are at a high. Beekeepers are reporting a 72% drop in harvested honey and bees are on the life-support equipment that is sugar syrup. So you can understand their anger with the execution of 26,000 cattle after they were infected with Bovine TB from urine and faeces last year.

It’s only common sense that there would be some suggestions on how to tackle the problem then, and of course, a conflict of opinion. We either vaccinate the badger population or cull them. Treatment or murder? Life or death? The Government has opted to provide a pilot project of culling, drawing in cross-spectrum criticism whilst regional Wildlife Trusts will pilot a vaccination scheme. Gloucestershire and Somerset will play host to the 6-week cull trial, whereas Shropshire and Cheshire will pilot vaccinating. I’m certain there’s an obvious better option of the two.

Humanely, there is little defence of a culling scheme, a process which simply involves hunting wild badgers and shooting them indiscriminately. Expected to cost the taxpayer around £100,000 a year, the process is supposed to use less time and resources than a previous vaccination scheme which still resulted in £500m being spent to control the disease over the last 10 years. So, it is plausible that the cull proposal would be massively beneficial to farmers’ livestock and the taxpayer alike.

But is this an argument of quality or quantity? Why do people buy organic foods in the supermarket? Is it hypocritical to be using these ethical food sources whilst supporting the cruel act of a cull of another species?

Of course vaccination has its own costs and complications, but surely that’s something you would sacrifice and admit and then get on with it, for the sake of both cattle and badger? And surely life itself is invaluable – we shouldn’t underestimate that. Besides, experts argue that the cull which actually increase the chances of TB being transferred from badger to cattle, that it will cost more in the long run, it’s inhumane and that there is no concrete proof that the TB is always directly transferred from badger to cattle, rather than cattle to cattle.

I hope that this pilot project proves unsuccessful and ultimately costly, or better, that they decide to cancel it and continue on the vaccination program. After all, Scotland never culled their badger population and they were declared TB free in September 2009, so we can certainly achieve that same result.

Also published on Redbrick

A Favourable Backbench Rebellion

Image by Constantin Deaconescu

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

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

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

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

Why the PCC Elections are a bit of a Farce!

Image from UKHomeOffice on Flickr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t forget and don’t miss out.

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