The Scotsman

Broody Men

2010-12-18T11:19:00.002Z

I am a 23 year old broody male. I posted on Twitter "is it odd for a 23 year old straight male to get paternal?" I have had some interesting responses.

What has been established, by men, is that it is not odd - it is perfectly acceptable. One respondee has been broody since 19. Kudos!

From women there have been mixed responses. Many have said it is rare. One has said it was a bit strange. But it has raised a stigma attached to male broodiness.

Time for the revolution.

Labour Ballot

2010-09-05T08:14:00.003+01:00

I know these things are supposed to remain secret, but I am using my discretion to divulge my choices in the Leadership,Treasurer, NEC, and NPF elections.

For Labour Leader my preferences are:
1- David Miliband
2 - Andy Burnham
3 - Ed Balls
4 - Diane Abbott
5 - Ed Miliband

It has been a hard choice for positions 2 - 5. Admittedly I didn't have to vote for every candidate, but I chose to exercise that option. David was always my first choice and the others have vied for my attention - and I have ranked them in accordance to the attention they grabbed.

For Labour Party Treasurer I voted for Diana Holland.
I believe that the party needs to move forward, not just as a Parliamentary Party but, as a party united and whole. I don't think Lord Prescott offered that. Besides Diana's 'manifesto' in the supporting literature appealed to me more.

For the National Executive Committee I voted for:

Johanna Baxter
Ann Black
Oona King
Christine Shawcroft
Rajwant Singh Sidhu
Sam Tarry

These six appealed to me more than the other candidates did.

For the National Policy Forum Regional Representatives I voted for:

Vicki Black
Keir Dhillon
Glyn Ford
Clare Moody

Again these four appealed to me more than the other candidates did.

For NPF Regional Youth Rep I voted for Gus Baker. As Gus appealed to me more.

The decisions made for positions other than Leader and Treasurer were harder to make as I don't know who they are, they're not in the press, and yet they are just as important in the overall structure of the Party and formation of Policy as the Leader of the Party. All I have to make my decision is 100 or so words in the supporting booklet. I know it is impractical, but I believe that Hustings for non-leader positions, especialy for the Regional representatives, would have made the decision easier and would have engaged members more than it has - which it hasn't at all.

Gordon's Gaffe

2010-04-28T12:44:00.002+01:00

It's a shame that something like the word "bigot" is caught when it's not meant to - like with Gordon Brown when a mic was left on his shirt. Should he have said it? No. Was he right in his analysis? Fairly. But you can judge for yourself wether she was bigoted or not. I agree with Gordon (but I would've kept it to myself).

The Liberal Democrat Manifesto: A Critique

2010-04-25T18:16:00.001+01:00

The Third and final instalment of the Manifesto Tour is the Liberal Democrat’s Manifesto, Change That Works for You. First impressions, based on the cover, is that it looks like a report on NHS efficiency, or similar, made for public consumption. On the front it lists the Lib Dems four pledges: Fair Taxes; A Fair Chance; A Fair Future; and A Fair Deal. On the back is a photograph of a very smug Nick Clegg standing in front of a resentful but, for posterity reasons, pursed smile looking Vince Cable. But people who still haven’t seen the Leaders Debates will be thinking “Who’s that guy standing in front of Vince?”

Skipping the fairly long introduction, I shall move onto policy areas starting with the first section on the economy entitled Your Money.

It opens up with a bold statement “we have plans for the most radical, far-reaching tax reforms in a generation.” These tax reforms are raising the personal allowance from £6,450 to £10,000. They claim that “this will put £700 back into the pockets of…3.6 million people.” But those with any grasp of mathematics will realise that 6,450 is not 700 less than 10,000. According to HMRC, using current tax bands, this will be a saving of £2,000 on average. Is this radical? It is about as radical as changing cereal brands…

For radical one would expect a complete overhaul of the entire tax system, but not supermarket own instead of multi-national corporation cereal.

They plan to pay for this through a series of measures such as: “Taxing capital gains at the same rates as income” – good. “Tackling tax avoidance and evasion” – good and also the first manifesto to deal with the issue. “Replacing the per-passenger Air Passenger Duty with a per-plane duty, ensuring that air freight is taxed for the first time” and up goes the price of food and, thus, inflation.

In dealing with the deficit the Lib Dems agree with Gordon in postponing cuts to 2011-12 in order to secure the recovery.

Savings will be made by “setting a £400 pay rise for all public sector workers…ensuring that the lowest paid are eligible of the biggest percentage rise.” Why not introduce a pay rise with a x% increase for bands x-x? Because that would be too simple.

“Restricting tax credits” to whom and at what level? This is never answered, it’s very vague.

“Ending government payments into Child Trust Funds” which will disadvantage already disadvantaged children.

They will break up the banks because small banks, like Northern Rock, weren’t at the epicentre of the financial crisis. Vince you have written a book on this! You should know better than anyone in Westminster!

The idea behind the break up is so that the financial crisis of this scale will never happen again. But 80-90 years down the line Banks will merge together, once again, and it will happen again. Mark my words! There needs to be a more comprehensive reform of the financial sector that can only be achieved internationally.

They will reduce “the number of short sentences” effectively letting criminals roam free – well done!

Scrapping Trident, which they claim will save us over £100bn. If only future costs could be dealt with in one lump sum. In fact the cost of the Trident renewal will be spread over the course of decades and will not begin until around 2020. Also getting rid of Trident, even in favour of an alternative that may or may not be an effective deterrent or second strike system, is a bad idea. It’s not really best to get caught with our pants down by rogue states. Multilateral disarmament is the best outcome but, until then, Trident is doing a superb job.

The Lib Dems acknowledge public servants as people and taxpayers too. This gets my approval.

They aim to establish a Council on Financial Stability, which one can only assume is a Quango. It will involve the Shadow Chancellors, the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chair of the FSA. A committee of similar name already exists except it does not include Shadow Chancellors. Surely extending the Committee will cost less and be more productive than creating a new body.

The provision for pension reform is more comprehensive than the other parties and also offers a safeguard. It states that they will link pensions to earnings, but also add that “we will uprate the state pension annually by whichever is the higher growth in earnings, growth in prices or 2.5 per cent. This is good news for pensioners seeing as earnings are currently taking a hit.

Next section: Your Job. The crux of this section is the creation of a green stimulus in order to create and sustain 100,000 jobs and achieve the Lib Dems ambitious target to have a zero-carbon Britain by 2050. My initial thought was “F**k”.

One of the proposals in the Green Stimulus plan is to effectively end second home ownership by “bringing 250,000 empty homes back into use”.

They want to encourage the mutualisation of the banks and public sector.

The rest of the section is either an expansion of existing policy or is shared between one or both of the other parties.

Your Life.

Lib Dems will invest 2.5bn in a ‘Pupil Premium’ which will raise standards for the most disadvantaged pupils and boost opportunities for children. However how it is spent is at the discretion of head teachers – embezzlement anyone?

They will scrap the National Curriculum and replace it with a ‘Minimum Curriculum Entitlement’ and that does what?

They will “create a General Diploma to bring GCSEs. A-Levels and high quality vocational qualifications together, enabling pupils to mix vocational and academic learning.” This is already being phased in by the current Labour government.

Replace Academies with ‘Sponsor-Managed Schools’ which sound like the exact same thing.

They will “end unfair discrimination on grounds of faith” but will still maintain faith schools in the state system. As a Roman Catholic I would like to see the separation of Church and State especially in regards to education. If parents want a religious upbringing for their children. Instruct them at home or use the private system – which should be encouraged to be end.

They will scrap University Tuition fees, which is not financially feasible but a nice gesture though. It would be more realistic to maintain the current levels or use NUS’ proposals for a graduate tax. They will also “immediately scrap fees for final year students.” What about those that have already gone through the tuition fee system, will you give them their money back? I thought not.

Healthcare is centred on the primacy of preventative healthcare.

Your Family, as it is title is about the family, but not in the Conservative sense, there is no Marriage tax relief here. In fact there’s not a lot to critique in this section as it is rather an extension of already existing practices and sometimes tightening practices and regulations. They will set the minimum wage at the same level for all workers over 16, with no move to increase it, and except for those on apprenticeships. What do apprenticeships have instead, as it is effectively slave labour? Who knows? The answer is not provided for in the manifesto.

They will scrap compulsory retirement ages, but make no provision for a minimum pensionable age.

It’s a first time that animals have been mentioned in a manifesto from the three parties this year. For a nation of animal and pet lovers, it now seems odd that this is excluded from the other two. But it doesn’t actually say much, it’s more simplifying existing bodies and tightening regulation.

Your World is a mixture of Foreign, Defence and Environmental policy.

Britain will be at the heart of Europe, which for a huge Europhile like me is great news, but for most people will turn them off the Lib Dems and perhaps increase the Tory share of the vote. Sad times. They are committed to the Euro, but only in a referendum and once the Euro overtakes the Pound in exchange rates.

The next section, Your Community, is effectively a crack down in crime by increasing police numbers, international co-operation and an illegal immigrant amnesty (which has already been pulled apart, though I do agree with it in principle as it will strangle the informal economy). Though they will introduce a uniform waste and recycling policy.

The last section, Your Say, is all about the reform of politics. As you all know the Lib Dems are committed to electoral and parliamentary reform. They love STV and a fully elected Second Chamber along with a written constitution. What I don’t particularly like is the old commitment to a local income tax, luckily there is very little emphasis on it. It is potentially fairer but potentially less revenue for some, if not most, councils.

They will also aim to create a federal Britain. If a federal Europe was on the cards – fantastic. It’s not, and I do not think that a federal Britain is the right way forward.

Right at the end are tables of proposals, sort of a mini budget in anticipation of holding an emergency budget in June 2011. As a number junkie, I like it, not the spending/cuts just the numbers. It also has an index!

In conclusion, the tax reforms are not radical, some proposals, such as scrapping of university tuition fees, are unworkable. It appeals to my europhilia but not to my commitments to national security. It is a very comprehensive manifesto. However, though not a fault of anyone, there is a lot of crossover between the three manifestos – therefore next post will be on the comparisons.

PS I will not be voting Lib Dem, I will vote Labour as I believe Labour has the best vision for Britain.

Ideal Hung Parliament Cabinet

2010-04-24T13:41:00.002+01:00

Prime Minister: Gordon Brown
Deputy Prime Minister: Nick Clegg

Chancellor: Vince Cable

Foreign Secretary: David Miliband
Home Secretary: David Davis
Health Secretary: Ben Bradshaw
Schools Secretary: Ed Miliband
Defence Secretary: Lord Ashdown
Business: Lord Mandelson
Treasury: Ken Clarke
Communities: John Denham
Culture: Lynne Featherstone
International Development: Sarah Teather
Transport: Lord Adonis
Work & Pensions: Philip Hammond
Energy: Kerry Macarthy
Justice: Jack Straw
Environment: Rosie Winterton

Labour Manifesto: A Critique

2010-04-21T14:27:00.053+01:00

Now to carry on with my series critiquing the Manifestos of the Three Main Parties. Labour has its turn. One would be wrong in assuming, that being a Labour member, Labour would be given a soft-treatment. I will be critiquing it in the same way as I did the Conservative Manifesto. The only difference being is that the Labour Manifesto, A Future Fair For All, is not funny and does not offer any ridicule - sorry to disappoint.

The cover of A Future Fair For All resembles the cover of an earlier Labour Manifesto: Greet The Dawn, Labour's 1923 Manifesto under Ramsay MacDonald. For those of you not familiar with it, I have provided an Artists image of Greet The Dawn.

Now on to the crux of the matter, the actual substance and policies of a possible Labour Government. There are three Sections titled: Rebuilding our Economy; Protecting Public Services and strengthening Society; A New Politics. The Sections each have their own dedicated chapters, so let's move on to the First section: Rebuilding our Economy and its First Chapter: Growth: Building the High-Growth Economy of the Future.

Before I carry on, I should point out that Labour does not, that often, compare itself with the Conservatives and the Lib Dems are ignored. Then again, after 13 years in Government you have only got yourself alone to compare against.

First Section, First Chapter. At the heart of this chapter, and indeed the entire manifesto, are the principles of Rights and Responsibilities, and Co-operation. The first proper sentence states that "there will be no return to business as usual" things cannot go back to the way they were. Financial systems have proven to have failed and a new system is being built. Whether it will be entirely different or very similar to the existing structure is yet to be seen, but changes are happening. Labour wants a "diversification of our industrial base" mainly because the traditional manufacturing and industry ceases to exist. Foreign companies and banks were bailed out, rightly or wrongly, instead of local, British industry. The economic reason behind this is that, if the banks went then the entire economy would go with them, and foreign companies are a large employer in the traditional industrial heartlands.

"The engine of growth is private enterprise", but under current conditions public investment is the fuel. Cutting the public sector now or in a years time will bring about reductions in the deficit but it also penalises public servants who have worked tirelessly throughout the crisis ensuring that it is business as usual as the world collapses around us. Cutting public services, all parties are and will be guilty of this, is as good as treating public servants as little more than insects. It is something that really, really gets on my nerves - more on that later!

The state under Labour will be neither big or small but supportive in order to "nurture private-sector dynamism, properly supporting infrastructure and the sectors of the future."

They have laid out plans for the reduction of the budget deficit, such as: fair tax increases; a firm grip on public spending; increase tax revenues and reduce spending on benefits. It's vague in the details and it would be nice to have them. It might put off some voters, but manifestos are usually for people like me - political junkies. Policy detail = good!!

Over three years to 2013, Labour has identified £35bn efficiency savings! This is a huge amount and I have a fear that it could impede on the operational effectiveness of public services.

"Savings from our tougher approach will help realise a fair rate of pay for all those working for central government" but what about those working in local government? Neglect local government and local government neglects you.

"We will maintain our inflation target of two per cent so that mortgage rates can be kept as low as possible." But interest rates will need to be raised to maintain the inflation target - bear in mind that inflation currently stands at 3.5% - which in turn will increase mortgage rates. Damned either way really, just don't make promises that definitely cannot be kept. And there is too much emphasis on the importance of a property owning class in this manifesto. When will they, politicians in general, realise that property is the scurge of society and helped get us in this mangaled situation.

Labour proposes multi-lateral solutions to the GLOBAL financial crisis. They also want to encourage mutualisation of the banking sector.

Investment in small-medium enterprises (SMEs), through public-private partnerships (PPPs) are key to the economic recovery and Labour will also reduce the corporation tax for British companies in order to "encourage UK-based innovation."

There is also plans to export the NHS and our higher education system. So America might get the Healthcare system it deserves.

As you are probably more than aware, Labour plans to introduce superfast Broadband over the lifetime of the next parliament. The plan will be achieved in three stages: 1) every household at least 2mbps by 2012. 2) expanding infrastructure to make superfast broadband a possibility for 90% of population. 3) providing above to remaining 10% via satellites and mobile broadband.
The cost of this was the landline levy which was scuppered in the wash-up and will unlikely go through again. Therefore alternative sources of revenue will have to be found, unless the internet providers pay for it, with a small amount of public investment.

They also propose a high-speed rail link between the North and London, in fact all over the country apart from the South West. Penzance to Paddington line is one of the busiest and most expensive routes, but under proposals outlined in the manifesto will not be reformed in any way whatsoever. Not good enough!

Labour is encouraging the mutualisation of the private sector, mainly because it works and, because the public sector is already effectively mutualised.

Now onto the Second Chapter of the First Section: Living Standards: Prosperity For All Not Just a Few.

Labour will link rises in the National Minimum Wage to average earnings. Sadly this is not enough to survive upon, let alone live, and seeing as earnings are currently taking a hit it could mean a relative loss. Will there be safeguards? By the look of things - no.

In regards to Welfare, Labour is 'Tough, Firm and Fair', a principle that myself and a good friend of mine, Tom Pike, suggested could be applied to every policy area, but it seems that only welfare gets the Oldfield-Pike treatment.

"For those with the most serious conditions or disabilities who want to work there will be a new guarantee fo supported employment after two years on benefit." Why not before? It seems to be discrimantory based on ability. If they want to work, why can't they be helped, as good as, immediately?

Single Parents have been renamed lone parents and Labour will increase the pro-active involvement in the return to work. I have mixed feelings about this as it is good for the economy, but potentially damaging for the child.

They want to build up to 10,000 council houses a year by the end of the next parliament, but most local authorities have waiting lists that long. It, sadly, won't provide enough and is a case of 'too little, too late'.

Labour wants to encourage saving, not through market instruments, but by matching 50p for every £1 saved. It is targeted at lower income families and 18-30 year olds and is limited to £300 government investment. The targeted demographics have a greater need for saving but also less likely to. Despite the limitation, the sum of the targeted families (being 8 million by Labour's calculations) plus the age group = a load of money.

To sum up the section, Labour will put people and society into the heart of the financail sector, as opposed to over a century of practices where the financial sector has been at the heart of society. These are not ambitious measures but will protect consumers and are very achievable without international commitments.

Now to the Second Section, Protecting Public Services and Strenghtening Society, and its First Chapter, Education: Excellence in Education: Every Child the Chance to Fulfil their Potential.

It is the first section after the economy which means that education is important! Labour aims, for Early Years, to promote play based learning - putting emphasis on relationship building with a goal for universal free childcare for toddlers (1-2 years old).

They propose a "£10,000 'golden handcuffs' to attract the best teachers into the most challenging schools" - despite the hefty remuneration it doesn't sound attractive at all. Handcuffs?! I didn't realise teaching was like being arrested...

Reducing class sizes and introducing 1-to-1 for GCSE years is similar to privagte education and higher education - this gets my thumbs up. However, I am unsure about the diploma system which fuses academic and vocational subjects. It is untested, but they are two different areas of education - this gets no thumbs up or down.

"Cadet forces will move increasingly into state schools" - Good! CCF already exists in private and some grammar schools, but there will also be allegations of militarising the youth. I say to those sceptics - it will instill discipline, responsibility as well as a plethora of extra skills.

To Health! Health: World-leading healthcare: a Patient-centred NHS.

There is an emphasis on prevention, patient choice and freeing up medical staff so they can do the job they are employed to do. Prevent, treat, care. Again, the policy reinforces rights and responsibilities, such as "patients who fail to turn up for pre-booked appointments will not be guaranteed fast-track treatment."

Third Chapter, Second Section: Crime and Immigration: Strengthening our Communities, Securing our Borders.

Hostile Takeovers of Police Forces - paraphrased actual policy.

Prevention and intervention in crime is linked to rising standards in health and education with an emphasis in prevention and rehabilitation.

The manifesto mentions a continued policy of zero tolerance of violence against women. But nowhere does it mention violence against men - it is an occurence, OK it's not as prolific but it still needs to be addressed if equality is to be achieved.

"We condemn torture, and our police and security services will not co-operate with those who use torture." So no intelligence co-operation with the USA, Isrealis or Arabs then...

I found the next three chapters, Families and Older People; Communities and Creative Britain;and A Green Recovery fairly dry and substantial. No holes picked - well done guys!

Third Section, A New Politics, and the First Chapter, Democratic Reform: A New Politics: Renewing our Democracy and Rebuilding Trust.

First things first - reform of Westminster. Referendum on introducing the AV electoral system. It's still majoritarian and maintains the link between representative and constituency, and it is fairer than First-past-the-post. It's different, but it's no STV.

Then there's the reform of the Lords - creating a wholly elected second chamber. Again, there will be a referendum (as it is a constitutional matter) but, if successful, will be introduced in stages over the lifetime of Three Parliaments. I, and many others, would prefer it if it was introduced immediately as oposed to stage-by-stage. They also want the electoral system to be Open List for the Lords. STV?

Expansion of the franchise to 16 year olds will occur under Labour, but with this new found right comes a responsibility, such as citizenship classes so they know why they are voting and the importance of democracy.

They will consult about introducing a written constitution - YAY! I then asked about monarchical reform, and they answered!! Just over the page rather than immediately. Don't get too excited, it's not what you think it is: "Our constitutional monarchy is the source of deep pride and strength for our country. We believe there is a case for reform of the laws concerning marriage to Roman Catholics and the primacy of male members of the Royal Family. However, any reform would need the agreement of all the Commonwealth countries of which the Queen is the Sovereign."

In the rest of the political system there will be greater say in the running of government and services but they will still be directed and supported from central government.

Final Chapter, A Global Future: Meeting the Challenges of the New Global Age, is all about Foreign policy. Multi-lateral action is key to this area.

Defence spending is increasing, year on year, in real terms and has done since 1997.

Labour will maintain the independent nuclear deterrent and "will fight for multi-lateral disarmament" as opposed to unilateral disarmament or keeping it indefinetly.

"Britain is stronger in the world when the European Union is strong" - says it all. WE ARE AWESOME!

Labour will reform the CAP - mainly because it's rubbish. They are also not considering the Euro, but if they were, there would be a referendum. Before you Euro-sceptics/anti-labourites start the Lisbon Treaty is not the same as the European Constitution. First of all they have different names. Secondly, they do different things. Labour promised a referendum on the Constitution, not Lisbon. Get your facts straight!

So there ends the Manifesto, there is also 50 Steps to a Future Fair For All, but it's just the manifesto condensed.

To conclude, at the heart of the manifesto is co-operation, whether it is domestically or internationally. It helps that Gordon Brown is the first Co-operative PM, with a lot of Co-operative MPs in his cabinet. I mustn't forget the emphasis on rights and responsibilities as that crops up more often than the co-operation theme.

Am I proud of this manifesto? Not really, there's so much more reform of the economy, tax and political systems that needs to be done. But it does lay the foundation for future reform, of that I am satisfied.

The Conservative Manifesto: A Critique

2010-04-18T17:27:00.002+01:00

The Conservative 2010 Manifesto, Invitation to Join the Government of Britain, is not inviting. Big bold capitalised letters stand out in silver type against a dark blue, hard-backed cover. I have to say, if it was an ordinary book I would be impressed with the presentation and the fact that I could get a hard-back for £5. It is split in to 5 chapters with multiple sub-chapters. The chapter headings are as follows: Change the Economy; Change Society; Change Politics; Protect the Environment; Promote our National Interest. I have very little qualms with the last two chapters; I have huge problems with the first three. It’s not that I am a Labour supporter that I have problems with them, it’s more the fact that I disagree fundamentally with Cameronism, though I have to say there are a few good points. I hate and loathe ‘Broken Britain’, it is not broken! Britain has problems but it is still brilliant. All this, and more, shall be dealt with in due course, but I would like to point out something mentioned in the foreword.

“We know this is an ambitious vision…It is also an authentically Conservative vision: sound money, backing enterprise, trusting people.” Note that money and business is put before people. Do we want a government that puts the interests of money and business before the people it claims to represent? I say no!

Moving on to the critique itself I shall start with the first chapter, Change the Economy, admittedly the largest chapter and the largest section of the critique. The chapter opens up by asking three questions, I have answered these questions.

“Where is the growth going to come from?” They ask. “Government Investment” I reply. “Who will provide jobs for the millions out of work?” They ask. “Labour!” I respond. “How will families be able to aspire to a better future?” They ask. “How’s that relevant to the economy?” I ask. They do not answer back.

Apparently the banks are not the only ones to blame for the recession, oh no, in fact everyone is responsible for our irresponsible behaviour. And seeing as we are all in this together, I’m blaming George. National Debt is going to DOUBLE. AGAIN! What?! How?! When did this revelation happen?! I suspect that George had another ‘dream’ and it went in the manifesto. As we are all in this together, I am again going to blame George.

“Labour’s job tax” is referred to over and over again. I had forgotten that National Insurance Contributions were the same thing as income tax. They want to create more jobs in the private sector but, at the moment, that can ONLY be done through public investment – hence the increase in NICs. They claim “we must get better value for money from the public sector.” Actually I would like worse value for money – think it through David. They’ve also stolen one of Labour’s pledges to develop a hi-tech economy! The cheek!

They want to encourage saving but also want to maintain the low interest rates. Maintaining low interest rates is notorious for putting off saving and prolonged use leads to inflation, another thing that discourages saving. So far the economic policy is off to a great start – nowhere fast.

They also mention a ‘new’ economic model, but I cannot, for the life of me, find out anything remotely new. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

There is also a list of Benchmarks for Britain, 8 of them, coincidentally each benchmark is sub-chapter heading. They are as follows: Ensure Macroeconomic Stability; Create a More Balanced Economy; Get Britain Working Again; Encourage Enterprise; Ensure the Whole Country Shares in Rising Prosperity; Reform Public Services to Deliver Better Value for Money; Create a Safer Banking System that Serves the Needs of the Economy; Build a Greener Economy. It’s a great list, and the sub-chapters are thrilling reads but it doesn’t really specify how these benchmarks will be achieved.

The budget deficit “jeopardises investment” but so do cuts. Apparently Gordon Brown is “the greatest risk to our economic recovery” but so are cuts. Believe it or not but the OECD, yes those economic big guns, agree with Gordon and Labour over the recovery plan and delaying cuts until the recovery is secured, not immediately as is proposed by this manifesto. Alongside these cuts, they will increase spending on health. Where is this money coming from? We’ve got an increase in NICs to help reduce the deficit and increase health spending. You’ve got cuts…on “wasteful spending” like jobs, though could very well be procurement.

At this point I should point out that every new Tory Quango will be pre-fixed by ‘independent’, such as the “independent Office for Budget Responsibility” whose job it is “to ensure that no Labour government can ever attempt to bankrupt our public finances” but it’s OK for the Tories to do so.

Now, there are some good things in this section, such as “stop paying tax credits to better-off families with incomes over £50,000” or “cut Ministers’ pay by 5%, followed by a five year freeze” but these aren’t vote winners. They will also “reduce the number of MPs by 10%” most likely having a huge impact on the representation, especially for urban areas.

“Experts Big Business predict it [NICs] will cost 57,000 jobs” well, why doesn’t the top brass take a pay cut, say to a ratio of 10:1? In my dreams.

The Tories want to end the dependency on “unsustainable inflows of capital from abroad”, but then later in the manifesto they state they “will take a series of measures to encourage foreign direct investment into the UK.” I do mean to be pedantic and they have just contradicted themselves.

They will also impose a “flat-rate levy on all non-domiciled individuals.” So they are dealing with the Ashcroft situation, but without knowing how much this levy is, I’m going to say that it is a gesture and they will, in fact, be helping Ashcroft and his type.

The Tories claim that Unemployment is more than 5 MILLION!!! There was me thinking it was around 2.5 million. To combat this HUGE amount of unemployed people they will create a “Work (House) Programme” including those on incapacity benefit which, as you all know, is different from JSA. They are regurgitating policies that are already in place, such as “those found fit for work will be transferred onto JSA.” They also improve on Labour’s commitment to find work, training etc. for those on JSA such as reducing the year wait to 6 months. The work programme will utilise the private and voluntary sectors “which will be rewarded on a payment by results basis” i.e. commission. Outsourcing is cheaper but does not necessarily work. I know that Labour also uses the Private and Voluntary sector but does not rely entirely upon it.

They support Higher Fees in Higher Education, but you knew that already, but they also aim to benefit the rich by giving discounts on loan repayments if paid back early. I don’t know about you, but it’s not an option for me.

They will cut Corporation Tax, which will be administered through the “independent Office of Tax Simplification”, another Quango.

“A Conservative government will introduce regulatory budgets: forcing any government body wanting to introduce an new regulation to reduce regulation elsewhere by a greater amount.” So they want to reduce regulation through more regulation…Clever.

“We are proud of the last Conservative Government’s industrial relations reforms, which helped bring about our economic revival in the 1980s, and we will always be prepared to build on them if necessary.” SMASH THE UNIONS!!

Under a Conservative government we will see Public Sector Workers paid by commission and pandering to the whims of the market and ‘consumers’. But, this is a big BUT, the workers can form mutuals. “We will encourage them to come together to form employee-led co-operatives and bid to take over the services they run.” Though this is likely to be difficult to obtain and makes for very odd reading in a Conservative manifesto. They claim that the mutualisation of public services will be the most significant “shift in power from the state to working people since the sale of council houses in the 1980s.” I recall this having bad ramifications.

So that’s the important part of the economy out the way. As you can tell, it’s a pretty rubbish plan with contradictions and Quangos here, there and everywhere.

Now to the Change Society chapter. Many will realise that this is where Broken Britain and Big Society are mentioned ALL THE TIME. But first I would like to point out that the Tories want to Suburbanise society, so from a vibrant and urban society to a dull and boring existence. Nothing happens in suburbs, plus there is not enough space to create more of them.

The big society is effectively DIY government with a bit of anarcho-capitalism thrown in for good measure. Public Sector Workers have to volunteer in order to keep their jobs. Fantastic!

I’m sure you’re all aware of the National Citizen Service, so I’ll just mention this: Where are we going to find the time to do all this?! I recall Britons suffer from time poverty.

Tory reforms for families will demonise the majority of families (single parents) in favour of married couples, they don’t even have to have children – score! I now what I’m going to do if there’s a Tory government, get married! I can save a total of £150 a year!! And I don’t have to have children! And then there’s a list of Labour achievements, such as Sure Start, Winter Fuel Payment, Free Bus Passes, Family Tax Credits etc, which the Tories claim they’ll protect – only because those achievements, Labour’s achievements, are vote winners.

They also claim to be the party of the NHS. EH?!

And they’ll change the name of the Department of Health to the Department of Public Health. First, what’s the point? Second, how much is this going to cost? Such waste.

Education is borrowed from Sweden and they’re going to politicise the Police Force.

So, the average British Adult is expected to work full-time, get married, raise a family and volunteer on top of that, plus pursue any hobbies they had before the Conservatives got in power. When are we going to have time off for ourselves? When we’re asleep? When we’re dead?

To the Final contentious issue I have with this Manifesto, Change Politics. They mention reform a lot! But it’s not real reform of the political institutions, such as the electoral system or a fully elected House of Lords, it’s wishy washy stuff like petitions being introduced as bills in Westminster.

Therefore Facebook petitions count and I want David Cameron to change his name to Iggle Piggle. Who’s with me?

They claim that they “proposed legislation so that anyone wanting to be a member of either the House of Commons or the House of Lords will need to be treated as a full UK taxpayer.” I’m sure they told Lord Ashcroft that…

Apparently “sunlight is the best disinfectant”, tell that to Dettol. Dettol protects – FACT.

They will replace existing practices with something ever so slightly different, usually the name, such as ‘tariff’ instead of ‘levy’.

They want to introduce a “more accurate street count” for the homeless. I can just imagine a bureaucrat in this ‘non-job’ (non-job is a term the Tories want to cut) of counting homeless people as if they were cattle. Walking up and down the streets of Britain “1, 2, 3…” Don’t count them, help them!

They want to make politics more local but want to scrap “Labour’s uncompleted plans to impose unwieldy and expensive unitary councils”. Unitary councils, well for small areas like Exeter, are the embodiment of local.

They want to discourage “libel Tourism” I have no idea what it is, but it sounds fun!

They want to strengthen the Union, but they also support devolution. And they also claim that the “devolution settlement has caused separatism to gather momentum in Scotland, and…in Wales.” I am really confused by all this contradiction.

The Protect the Environment chapter seems stolen from anyone Left of the Conservatives, though they do want introduce a market into the environment. I think it’ll be on this lines of this: “Hunt 1 fox for £100 or 5 for £300.”

The last chapter, Promote our National Interest, is one of those non-chapters with not a lot in it apart from the obvious, such as “we will protect Britain from the enemy” whoever the enemy is, as designated by the Daily Mail. And they want to introduce an American style National Security Council.

In conclusion, the economic policy is a mess of contradictions. The social policy will create a suburban, DIY, more equal but not actually equal society. It won’t reform the political system, the green policy is stolen and the Foreign/Defence policy is what is expected of anyone seriously thinking of government and they will create more Quangos than they will cut.

Tories and Change. Change?

2010-04-08T12:44:00.003+01:00

"By the National Health Service and social security, we are raising the nation's industrial efficiency. The real Tory objection to these improvements is not that they force up British prices abroad - they obviuosly don't - but that they involve high taxation, which bears most heavily on the privileged classes."

The above was written in 1950 by a group of Labour MPs, Richard Acland and Barbara Castle being part of the group. Have the Tories changed over the 60 years? Short Answer: NO

#GEBeard

2010-04-04T10:29:00.002+01:00

As you've guessed it's about the General Election and Beards, with the Hashtag of #GEBeard

I will be shaving on Tuesday morning, assuming that's when the GE will be called, and will not shave until Labour is returned, in sufficient numbers, to form a Government(or until it gets too hot in the summer). I will be updating you all via Facebook and Twitter with photos and the like. To ensure a clean shaven me donate HERE!

Keep me updated with you level of donations and the biggest donator will recieve a FREE "Step Outside Posh Boy" T-Shirt (proof required such as a screen shot or bank statement or similar). Or, if you don't like T-Shirts, a good-ol' European Thanks.

Happy Campaigning and don't forget to DONATE here

Digitally Signed

UST OLDFIELD

Socialism and Christianity

2010-04-03T23:46:00.005+01:00

Over the past week I have had a crisis of faith in Catholicism, Labour and Humanity. I am not going to go into it at all, but know that the Good Friday Service has restored it and I am ready for anything!

Over the Easter weekend we are witnessing the anniversary of the birth of Christianity, and indeed Socialism. Unfortunately, due to the overbearing nature of organised religion and the hijacking of the socialist movement by a few militant atheists, Christianity is more closely linked to Conservatism than Socialism. Socialism is the natural bedfellow of Christianity!

The two share common principles, to list a few, they are:
Co-operation
Peace
Equality
Redistribution of Wealth
I could give you examples of all, but I thought it would be more fun if searched them yourselves. But I'll give you a head start. Equality can be linked to "treat others like you would like to be treated".

Have fun searching for the links between Christianity and Socialism, they are more prevalent and obvious than is apparent. Have a Happy Easter!

PS To readers of different religions, I am sure there are links between yours and Socialism, but I know nothing of them.

Moving on up!

2010-03-24T22:12:00.004Z

Today - 24/03/2010 - the day of the budget (will be in a blog soon) and I got elected to the Chair of University of Exeter Labour Students.

What I need to do now is begin a programme for the reform (not the right word) to boost the status of Labour Students nationally and, more importantly, locally. But how to go about it.

Regrettably, Labour Students nationally is ineffective as it holds its conferences in the North or in Scotland. Exeter is the furthest branch from it. What if it were held in a central location like Birmingham? This has already been tabled, and was defeated because Labour Students nationally is a Northern clique as that is where the support base is. Number 1: Campaign harder for the relocation of Labour Students conferences to the Midlands - accessible by all.

Exeter University is traditionally viewed as a Tory stronghold, this is not the case but the silent majority remain silent. Labour has a core, a very good core but it is ageing and new blood needs to be injected into it. Number 2: Increase Presence on Campus through recruitment drives and campaigning on Student Issues - start shouting!

Exeter, as a city, has a very strong Labour Party and a very good Labour MP. Students, unfortunately, are a transient populace but when they are in situ they influence and shape the area around them. It would be beneficial to all if students put soemthing back into the society that they live in for 3 years, instead of taking all the traffic cones. Number 3: Campaign on local issues to foster a bond between students and community.

When I take over on May 12th 2010 I have a fight on my hands. The General Election will be over, Exeter will most likely retain its brilliant MP, Ben Bradshaw, but nationally Labour will most likely be in a pickle. It's time to reverse the trend, even before the General Election is called.

We Will Fight the Good Fight and Fight to the Last Man! No Retreat, No Quarter, No Surrender! We Cannot Afford to Lose!

Come Win, lose or draw, I Will See You All On The Other Side!

Addenum: any serious ideas to improve UoELS are more than welcome

Canvassing Around my Ward

2010-03-23T11:14:00.004Z

As a few of you are aware I am the Labour Candidate for St David's Ward, Exeter for the local elections, to be held on the 6th May 2010. A week or so ago I was canvassing around my ward with Ben Bradsahw MP and Angela Eagle MP and a few others from the local party. There's a photo of me with the Labour big wigs:Anyway, vanity aside, whilst canvassing I came across some problems that concerned me somewhat and it has nothing to do with the fact that it was during the day on a Thursday - needless to say not many people were in. Those that did answer the door to me were receptive, welcoming and very supportive. A few, and by that I mean two people that answered their doors, pleasant as they were, concerned me. One was voting for the BNP and the other was not going to vote at all.

With the BNP chap, when he answered the door I immediately thought "bugger, he's BNP". One shouldn't judge, but I do. Anyway I introduced myself and he immediatley pipped up with "is this to do with the BNP?"
"No, it has nothing to do with the BNP" I replied
"That's a shame baecause I'm a BNP man. I f***ing hate those....." you can guess what else he said.
I wished him a good day and ran for it, I was not about to lose myself because of his comment. As soon as he said those words I ws both shocked and angry, my initial response was to lash out at him, luckily for both of us, rationality kicked in and I fled. The reason for this part of the post is to ask a question: 'How do we combat racism on the doorstep?'

I have no answer to this, as you can see my response when confronted was typical fight or flight and it was an inner struggle. I have confronted racists and the BNP before, but always through the safety of the internet or similar, never ever face-to-face. Ask yourself that question and I am interested by your answers.

The second concern that I wish to raise, is not isolated to my ward. The man who answered the door said that he had been a Labour man for all his life and was not going to vote this year because of the expenses scandal. I pointed out that Ben Bradshaw MP had not fiddled his expenses and has been clear with his expenses since 1997. He was having none of it! All politicians of all colours have been tarnished by the same brush. Partisan politics went out the window as my prinicples for maintaining democracy are stronger than ties to the Party. I had to get him out to vote, even if it meant spoiling his ballot paper. I eventually swung him around to voting, even if it was spoiling his paper, grrr, and even bagged myself a vote in the process. But the crux of the matter is that this is not an isolated incident, many potential voters and indeed party loyalists will not be turning out to the polling stations to cast their vote on May 6th because of the recent spate of scandals that have shocked Westminster to the core!

We, regardless of political persuasion, need to get out there and get people to the polling stations! Even if they spoil their ballot paper or vote for a party you fundementally disagree with we, as a country, will have proved to the world that Democarcy is not dead!

Why the French must Lose

2010-03-20T14:28:00.004Z

It's Super Saturday! One of the best days in the year. France is currently undefeated in the tournament, they are the only contenders for the Grand Slam. The last time France won the Grand Slam (2004) they were unbearable, just like the Welsh in 2005.

If England can defeat France, or a the very least hold them to a draw, France will be out of the running for the Grand Slam. If Ireland beat Scotland, they will win the Championship. A French loss and an Irish victory will maintain the Status Quo in rugby and keep the peace in Europe. French victory = riots in the Streets of Paris. Irish win means that no one really wins, but no one really loses either. It'll be a great day for rugby as the French will be denied victory.

NB: The likely-hood of the above happening is very slim, but we can hope.

Strategic Defence Review

2010-03-14T21:34:00.051Z

In a world of increasing instability and uncertainty, it is crucial that our Armed Forces develop, adapt and are given the brief to cope with the new, perceived, international environment. However, the defence of the British Isles has, for a long time, no longer been the sole remit of the Ministry of Defence (MoD). The purpose of the Strategic Defence Review is to reassess Britain’s commitments at home and internationally. The Government recently released the Green Paper in the lead up to the review next year. It lays out, briefly, the current commitments, likely future commitments and where the government stands on particular defence issues.

The green paper is 54 pages of lovliness and facts, however there is little reliance upon statistics. Spilt into five chapters, there are others though largely supplimentary to the main body, The first two chapters put the review into context. The remaining three chapters deal with the various aspects of the review being: Adaptability and Influence; Partnership and; People, Equipment and Structures.

CONTEXT: Uncertainty and Affordability

The context in which the next Strategic Defence Review will take place will see a development in a number of major trends, including a shift in the balance of power from the Atlantic to the Asia-Pacific region. These trends will produce more potential threats, threats to Britian's national security. Many of these threats will be transnational and harder to predict in a world charactersied by uncertainty. However, the world, from a Realist perspective and to an extent Liberal perspective, has always been full of uncertainty and anarchy. This is why Britain has to trust the constants, such as NATO, EU and US.

There are currently over 12 million British citizens that live overseas and other commitments, particularly through NATO, to contribute to the defence of others. This means that the defence of Britain can no longer be internalised and a struggle for the MoD on its own. This is where greater cooperation between the government departments come into the equation. Other commitments also include peacekeeping with the UN and the green paper extols the virtues of Britain in leading the way in peacekeeping opeartions, the beginning being the anti-slavery campaigns. However, in the midsts of these commitments is the threat of instability, in particular from rogue states.

"A state which is allowed to pursue its interests by changing borders by force or flouting international agreements such as the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is likely to contribute to wider instability and weaken the international system."

For the cyincal among you, this could indicate Iran or North Korea. However, because of the increasing globalised nature of events and systems domestic security cannot be separated from international security, the two are explicitly linked. This further means that, without a doubt, there needs to be greater cooperation between the various government departments, in particular: MoD, FCO, DfID and the Home Office.

And then, over the page, we are greeted with a long list of potential threats to British security. These threats consist of; TERRORISM; HOSTILE STATES; FRAGILE AND FAILING STATES; INTERNATIONAL CRIME; NATURAL DISASTERS. Within the doom and gloom is a positive trend:

"Political freedoms have spread. No Soviet-style global rival to Western liberal democracy has yet emerged."

This is very good news as democracies, in the Liberal strand of International Relations, do not attack each other. Again cynics might point out that the way Western liberal democracies go about creating other Western liberal democracies is through the medium of war e.g. Iraq. But if you want peace, prepare for war.

Luckily for us, NATO is also going through a review of its own, the review of its Strategic Concept, which is basically making sure that NATO remains an effective force. This also means that the SDR has to tie in with it, as Britain is a stakeholder in NATO.

Due to the recent financial crisis there are pressures on departments to cut budgets. The core defence budget has grown 10% since the 1998 defence review, but it is still less than in 1992-93. There are also unseen costs, not in the core budget such as the counter-terrorism budget, maintenance of the independent nuclear deterrent and subsidies for the defence industry. These unseen costs are also coupled with an increase in the costs of resources such as fuel. Research into a technological edge over the enemy is also producing a strain on the defence budget, as well as a rise in wages and pensions.

"Historically, rising unit costs have been offset by increases in capability and changes in the nature of the threat which have led us to reduce numbers of both personnel and platforms. But there are limits to how far capability improvements or efficiency can compensate for numbers."

Like all matters, it is finding the careful balance between efficiency, quantities and costs. It is trying to find that point on the curve which produces optimum efficiency not just theoretically but, more importantly, practically.

CONTEXT: Complexity and the Use of Force

Joint operations, between the three services and other international players, have become the norm. Support functions such as logistics and communications has meant that the sum is greater than the parts. Operations are becoming increasingly more complex as they become more interrelated.

The expeditionary capabilities of the Armed Forces have demonstrated their value to current operations. The expeditionary force, as part of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps - headed by a British Lieutenat-General, has been able to deploy and sustain forces from theatres such as Sierra Leone to Afghanistan.

Parallel, and central, to the review is an independent paper - The Future Character of Conflilct. The full report can be found here. The paper looks at the perceived threats and conflict situations up to 2029. To briefly summarise the paper, future operations will involve:

1-Contested - access and freedom of manouvere will have to be fought for
2-Congested - drawn into urban areas and lower airspace. Effectively close quarters and FIBUA (Fighting in Built-Up Areas)
3-Cluttered - increasingly difficult to discriminate between the enemy, civilian population, friendly forces and non-state actors such as NGOs
4-Connected - key lines of communication will be increasingly vulnerable to attack and disruption
5-Constrained - legal and social changes will place limits on actions.

Along with these five areas characterising Britain's future operations, there is also the changing nature of the enemy.

"Our adversaries will avoid engagement on our terms. They will adapt rapidly to exploit our vulnerabilities, for example figthing in built-up areas or concealing themselves amongst civilians. They may extend the conflict to areas where we are less prepared or protected."

The relatively good news is, is that British forces are already experiencing this type of conflict in Afghanistan. That's the good news, the bad news is that they are adapting much quicker to exploit our vulnerabilites than we are in protecting our vulnerable points. Whilst we are engaged in operations overseas there must be an increased multi-agent effort in restructuring and rebuilding in conflict zones. This effort will extend and compliment the 'Hearts and Minds' counter-insurgency strategy.

Expectation at home, in Britain, will also play a major role in shaping military actions and commitments. Their support will depend on the government being able to explain that operational objectives are in the UK's interest and the approach is feasible and proportionate, especially in human lives. The backlash to Iraq and growng hosility to Afghanistan is proving that the British public does not like being treated like children when it comes to enetering into conflicts. Britain needs to justify the reasons for entering into conflict so as to justify the loss of lives, in terms of the public's interests, British lives.

With regards to strategic communications, the use of new media will become more important as the need to introduce transparency into the operational capability becomese more important. However,

"There will be occasions when the need for operational security will override the case for openness. But we must guard against that being routinely used to avoid transparency."

With the spread and development of communication technology the views of individuals, as opposed to governments, will become more important to influence as these individual voices will increasingly affect our security.

The green paper also stresses the importance of technology, but there is the problem of; how do you utilise the correct technologies? Another problem is how do you defend against developments in technology that could expose and attack Britain's vulnerable points? An increasingly viable threat is cyber warfare, already experienced by the attack on Google and other non-state actors. Do you bring private companies on board? They have more experience in defending against unwanted intrsuions into a security network, but their interests are usually different from those of the nation state in that, by nature, they are mercantilist in their approach.

Investment in the sciences might be able to remedy and aleviate fears about vulnerabilites in our security. Civil investment is R&D is much larger than defence spending and most of this research could also be used in a military context. At this point I would also advise consideration about combining defence R&D budgets with European allies as the combined total would most likely rival US and China, plus wonderful projects are born out of it, like the Eurofighter.

Another problem is that by striving for the technological edge over the enemy could quickly become redundant as the 'simple' technology of IEDs are already beating the 'advanced' technologies of ISAF.

Adaptability and Influence

One way to increase the adaptability of defence is to hold regular defence reviews, this will ensure that strategic policy reflects changes in the international arena as opposed to lagging behind. Restructuring the top levels in the military and civil service could also, potentially, make the Armed Forces more responsive. Creating a multi-skilled service(wo)man would also increase the adaptability of the UK Forces, many of them are already operating outside of their primary roles.

Prioritising investment in multi-capability, multi-utility technologies, such as helicopters, will benefit the military in its operational capabilities. Developing closer links between regular and reserve forces will ensure access to a wider skills base and personnel pool. Using mature technologies would reduce the risk and cost involved through R&D and could, potentially, foster stronger links between Britain and other countries, such as Germany, as mature technologies will invariably come from foreign countries.

Improving the ratio between deployed personnel and equipment with overall numbers means that greater flexibility in deployment patterns can be introduced, which in turn will increase operational effect. Greater cooperation across Whitehall will also produce a more adaptable defence system.

With adaptability must come influence, in order to protect our intersts at home and abroad. One of these influences is deterrence. The most notable and, perhaps, controversial is the independent nuclear deterrent. The government is committeed to nuclear disarmament but;

"we have to begin the process of renewal of the Trident submarine system because not to do so would effectively commit us now to unilateral disarmament as future date regardless of the threats pertaining at the time."

In other words, we do not want to get caught with our pants down, therefore we must, this time, maintain the nuclear detrrent for the foreseeable future. Alongside the practice of deterrence is the practice of reassurance, which is providing allies with military support when threatened. Another useful tool of influence is the provision of economic sanctions, as well as traditional diplomacy.

Partnership

Partnership refers to international and domestic partnership and NATO remains the corner stone of our security. However the EU is becoming more important as;

"a robust EU role in crisis management will strenghten NATO. Playing a leading role at the heart of Europe will strengthen our relationship with the US."

This view is nothing new, as it was an opinion propogated by Tony Blair during his first term as Prime Minister. There is also scope to increasing British involvement in the UN whether through civilian or military operations. There is also scope to incorporate the African Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations into the policing capabilities. This is because European hegemony no longer exists and as a way to increase international stability by recognising the influence of the emerging powers.

As mentioned before greater cooperation across Whitehall will increase operational effectiveness but also improve Britain's national security. One of the best examples of cross-department cooperation is the CONTEST counter-terrorism strategy. The full report can be found here and the brief summary leaflet here.

People, Equipment and Structures

The most important part of this chapter is the focus on equipment, as the supply and maintenance of equipment has been brought into question during the Iraq Inquiry. The MoD has established a Strategy for Aquisition Reform, which will

"help us create an affordable long-term equipment programme, make better decisions about what we buy, ensure it delivers the right performance to time and cost and enhance our ability to adapt to change."

In light of the other issues raised, in particular international partnership, this brings into question the usefulness of the British defence industry, seeing as a vital piece of equipment, the SA80, is made by Heckler & Koch the well known German arms manufacturers. The paper does not deny the outsourcing of defence equipment, but

"there are cases where specific industrial capability must be located in the UK for operational reasons."

For example the development and maintenance of the Royal Navy. However the government would not want to get rid of the arms base in the UK as it is not in Britain's interests to do so. Some £20bn is spent per annum in the defence industry which means that Britain's decisions have a significant and long-term impact on the UK's industrial base and therefore on the livelihood of many British citizens. The counter argument can be found here.

Conclusion
Britain is in a pickle without the support it has from its international partners. Closer cooperation between the MoD and other government departments will increase operational effectiveness as will greater cooperation between Britain and her allies.

One thing that has not been raised in the green paper, but most likely will be in the Strategic Defence Review, is the operational effectiveness of the RAF. I know that the Army and the Royal Navy are pressing for its dissolution. The RAF was born out of the amalgamation of the Army Air Corps and Fleet Air Arm after the First World War. Yet the Army and Navy still maintain their wings. As conflicts, since the end of the Second World War has increasingly relied upon expeditionary forces and deterrence. Now the threat of the Soviet Union has gone and Europe is unified Britain's airspace is safe. The RAF's role is redundant. What the RAF does is also done by the Navy and Army. In a world of increasing efficency, especially in savings, cross-over in roles does not make sense. Do not be surprised if the RAF is dissolved during the next Strategic Defence Review.

Triumph of Localism

2010-02-10T15:45:00.004Z

Wednesday 10th February 2010 - Exeter is granted provisional Unitary Status, subject to getting passed through Parliament. I can say I was getting an essay result when I heard the good news. It is VERY good news, not just for Exeter but for Norwich and Democracy as a whole.

The Tories bang on about devolving power, but yet they are opposing Unitary. Not all Tories, the Exeter Conservative Council Group has supported the bid. Hannah Foster, the Tory PPC, however does not support the bid and goes against her LOCAL party to keep in favour with the National Party and the rural Tories.

In a Press Release by Devon County Council (DCC) Conservative Council Leader, John Hart had this to say:

“This decision is complete madness and we will fight it all the way. The Government’s decision shows utter contempt for the wishes of local people. But now, as Ministers scrabble for votes ahead of the General Election, they think this unnecessary and expensive decision to rip the heart out of Devon will galvanise their party workers in the city.This could be Ben Bradshaw’s parting gift to Exeter - a £200 a household increase in council tax to pay for his political fortunes.”

I'm going to critique Cllr Hart's quote, albeit shortened. The full quote can be found here. Cllr Hart is right, they will fight it all the way and I, along with Exeter, will meet him on the battlefield. DCC has also sent various PUBLIC officers to Westminster to speak with various Tory and Crossbench peers in an attempt to scuttle Exeter's chances.

Contempt for the wishes of local people. Yeah. Those that are opposing Unitary either work for DCC or are out in the sticks and have been fed the fear mongering of the Devon Conservative and, illogically, Liberal Democrats. So much for local democracy.

Rip the heart out of Devon - it's a nice phrase but regardless of political boundaries, Exeter will remain the HEART OF DEVON, it always has been and always will be. In fact, Exeter was an autonomous authority up until 1974 when the Tories took it away, just like milk.

I would like to point out to Cllr Hart that a £200 pound increase to Exeter City Council is nothing compared to the saving of £900 by not having to pay for services provided by DCC. Most of which are irrelevant to me and the people of Exeter. What happens in North Devon does not impact on my life, yet I pay for it. Similarly decisions over services provided by DCC in Exeter are made by people with little to no connection to Exeter - take the proposed closure of the St Thomas library. Vital service yet might be sold by DCC in the name of savings and trendy wine bar.

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!

Those immortal words, issued by the canny American rebels. The same suites Exeter, but now progress is being made and we will not have to take up arms to make it happen. Democracy has been proven to be at work.

My congratulations to all those who have worked tirelessly over the years to make this happen. I will leave you with the wisdom of Cllr Joan Morrish, leader of the Liberal Group:

"This is a great victory for local democracy and commonsense."

The Eye of the Storm

2010-01-27T10:09:00.005Z

Yesterday, the UK was officially out of the recession. I was wrong on the date, but right with the level of growth. A report can be read through the BBC here

However, now is not the time to start celebrating, it's time to start treading very carefully. Very Carefully!

Growth is young and no matter the level of nurturing, these green shoots will be destroyed when the storm picks up again. This is the Eye of the Storm. All is calm before, we are thrown back in to the turmoil of uncertainty and crises financial or otherwise.

The increase of VAT to the normal 17.5% at the beginning of the month has jolted the economy - mostly inflation, having jumped to 2.9%, whilst wages remain subdued at 1% increase at best or more commonly at 0% (frozen). This means that there is less money in the economy and people will be forced to tighten their belts. However, interest rates remain low which is good for borrowers (if they don't have to borrow more to supplement the fall in relative income), but this is bad for savers. It's also bad for the retail industry, which had a boost under the 15% rate, but can only remain solvent by the perpetual sale.

Unemployment fell before it was declared we were out of the recession. This defies the laws of economics. Unemployment should continue to rise long after growth is resumed. But, the figures can hide people voluntarily taking themsleves off JSA for reasons known to them. Unemployment will rise once again with the new wave of job cuts in an attempt for businesses to remain afloat and cope with the relative increase in the cost of resources (human, physical, capital etc).

The Scrappage scheme is set to run out in March, or around then, taking away the stimulus from a vulnerable section of industry. The public purse is being squeezed and many businesses, mostly start-ups, that rely upon government grants could possibly go under or struggle to keep afloat. These factors will feed into the rate of unemployment - increasing the burden on the public purse - it becomes a cycle.

I commend the Government for the actions it took in regards to the financial sector. Without that stimulus we would be in a worse state than we, in this country, could ever imagine. It would be like rolling the clock back 250 years. Our financial sector is the largest in the world, if it collapses we collapse.

However decisions taken in regards to VAT have only delayed matters, usually delayed actions store momentum meaning that when they are no longer delayed they are worse than if they had not been delayed. I hope that I am wrong on this.

How does one create or stimulate the growth already in existence? First I will direct you to some cynics at Nef who believe that economic growth cannot be sustained if we are to tackle climate change. A brief of the cynical report can be read here.

I would smite them if I could, they are wrong. Tackling climate change and economic growth can go hand in hand. I point you to an earlier post which can be found here. The green economy and green industry can take us in a new direction, one that might possibly end the cycle of boom and bust. Britain is well situated to ride out the storm, if it get in the right boat.

We Are All Bourgeois Now

2010-01-25T11:00:00.002Z

Released in 1988 by McCarthy, We Are All Bourgeois Now has remained in the dusty attics of punks from a distant generation who, today, don the suit of the establishment. It was famously paraphrased by John Prescott (@johnprescott) in 1997 ‘We are all Middle Class Now’, a cry for the realised dream of classlessness or class equality. Classlessness is a more preferable term. John Prescott’s paraphrasing is a long distance from the reality of the modern Labour Party where certain members hark back to the early days when class war was a reality, when workers had to fight tooth and nail for the rights and freedoms they now enjoy.

Class to the Conservatives might as well be Moths to Flame: irresistible! However, in a shrewd ploy by the master of spin and public relations, David Cameron has avoided the issue of class. It still lingers like a bad smell does, but it has been disguised by the heavy lacing of the perfume called ‘Social Justice’ i.e. Paternalistic Conservatism. Of all the Conservative strands, paternalism is perhaps the most preferable as it works, in a twisted fashion, to protect, care and swaddle the little man stifling creativity and initiative, but protected nonetheless. A classless society would not have to rely on the Noblesse Oblige for help; it would have itself and the many individuals that compose our society.

We are all bourgeois now
Once there was class war
But not any longer
Because baby we are all bourgeois now
So go out and make your way in the world
We're free to choose

It does not matter which label you attach to yourself – working class, middle class, or upper class. Class is just a label, but even so not many people know which class they belong to and some, under old classification, identify with the wrong class. Needless to say they are all defunct, we are all the same, we are all human beings, we are all bourgeois now!

However, the re-ignition of the class war by Harriet Harman and others, has only devalued the classless society that many before us have striven to create. No one can deny that the aim of Bevan’s welfare state was, and still is, to help everyone regardless of class! And so it should still remain.

Labour has long ceased to be the party of the workers, nor is it the party of privilege and the middle class. Labour is the party for everyone and everything. The political make-up of the party spans the three ‘class’ strata. Labour has striven to increase social mobility and it is succeeding. Comments by certain members of the Party can only weaken that success and the Tories can only destroy it.

In Booming Britain we all work together
To raise ourselves in the world
Each of us knows someone
Who has done well for themselves
So well for themselves
"Thank you," I said as I left
I'll be on my way, I see how it is

We are all bourgeois now
And somehow I'll raise myself through the world
I'm free to choose
We're all free to choose

Humans are naturally co-operative; let us work in the interests of ourselves and the common good, for society and the community. Let us put ‘class’ differences behind us. We are all Bourgeois now!

A Sustaniable Economy

2010-01-15T14:42:00.002Z

I was asked in March 2009 by the National Audit Office my opinion on a sustainable economy. It was a final question to an otherwise successful interview. I was dumbstruck! Nothing prepared me for such an out-of-the-blue question. I was sitting there, emotionless, for what seemed like eternity though more likely a few seconds before proceeding. I cannot remember in detail what I said, not even afterwards as I was still suffering from shock. I do, however, remember glimpses into my murky experience.

Sustainability, as I dredged up memories from A-Level Geography or colouring in to the lay, meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Within this definition it is implied that the areas for sustainability, more specifically development, are the Environment, the Economy and Society. As a political historian interested in Economics, the Economy is central to everything – just like history is everything (see E.H. Carr, What is History?, (1961)). For the environment it means creating a green economy. For society it means creating a social economy. For the economy it means working with the resources at our disposal and investing in the future. This country is not living within its means, it is unsustainable. This is plain fact seeing as the national expenditure is 1.5x more than the national income hence borrowing money and increasing the budget deficit from £40bn to around £1.2tn in 2014. One cannot produce short-term solutions to long-term problems, and that is what I fear government and opposition is advocating – short-term fixes. I do not think that the sage, Vince Cable MP, has the solutions either but at least we are both in the same section of the library.

In terms of the environment we, as a country, need to be concentrating on a green economy perhaps having the ambitious goal of being the world’s leading supplier of green energy and technology. As an island nation we are well situated for all renewable energy, bar solar. Wave, wind, tidal, hydro, geo-thermal etc., are all good examples. Instead of securing the immediate futures of a minority we should have secured our future and the futures of generations to come by investing in the green economy. If all local urban authorities and businesses that operate predominantly in urban areas invested in electric vans at £15 000 each they would have paid for themselves within 3 years and running costs thereafter would be minimal. By doing this, not only are running costs of the organisation reduced but emissions have been cut dramatically. Let us assume that London, being home to 10% of the population also has 10% of the vehicles. That means that there is 2.7 million cars and 330 000 LGVs (vans). I know for a fact that there are 20 000 buses in London. CO2 emissions for these vehicles equate at 7.7m tonnes, 1.5m tonnes and 0.75m tonnes respectively. For CO emissions this works out at 63 000 tonnes, 4 500 tonnes and 1 000 tonnes respectively. By converting the LGVs in London to Electric or Hydrogen powered we will lose a total of 1.5m tonnes of emissions a year. Convert public transport into the same and we lose 0.75m tonnes. By restricting cars in the capital and encouraging the use of public transport we can lose up to 7.7m tonnes. However this move is irrelevant if the rest of the country does not follow suit or the rest of the world does not take similar measures. This is where we, as a country, can once again call ourselves Great, as the leader of innovation and sustainability. If we do not take the first step no one else will. There are pressure groups and individuals doing a fantastic job out there by raising the issue but it is not enough if our politicians do not listen. In terms of individuals doing their bit, there needs to be uniform action taken on this across the country. Moving within local authorities, and even within local authorities themselves recycling is different from one area to the next. Examples that I know of, Exeter and Mid Devon, Exeter does not cater for glass or kitchen waste. Mid Devon does, they are both part of the same Local Authority, different districts mind, and literally a stone’s throw away, yet the action take in one is different in the other. Waste in the home, in business and in society is ruining this country and, indeed, the world unless a structured approach is given – many people want to cut down on waste whether it is to save the environment or cut down bills, yet information and systems to do so are all disconnected with a plethora of agencies and companies offering differing things, yet are the same. The next bit that I will dwell upon will lead me into Social sustainability and the social economy.

One of the causes of the recent recession was the housing bubble – one of many. Too many people chasing too few houses and far too many people on waiting lists for council housing or social housing as they like to call it now-a-days. The name does not matter much. Many will try to blame across the political divide – notably Thatcher – true as it is, pointing fingers is not going to solve the problem, just worsen it through delay. What needs to happen now is a massive program of construction in housing – not affordable, as the mortgage industry helped get us into this pickle, a house is not a castle it is more debt than anyone would wish and will end leave the king crying for a donkey – not the awful council house construction but a new architecture and house for the new Britain. I look to Germany, and admire how they do not value property like us – most property is rented and is more sustainable that way. With the new construction the ties between environment and society can be literally cemented together – though cement is proving to be a less attractive material in the construction of eco-friendly houses. There is a plethora of building practices to ensure a carbon-neutral building or even a carbon-positive building (where the practices and technology involved create an energy surplus). These construction technologies include geothermal exchange, solar panels, greywater recycling and other practices and systems to make recycling easier. This will cut down on waste and will save consumers money and ultimately slow down and maybe reverse current trends in the climate. Now, with society itself it is imperative to prepare for the future and correct mistakes already made. A concerted effort towards rehabilitation of criminals will ensure a smooth transition between criminal and citizen – I am reluctant to use the word ‘prisoner’ for those convicted of the most heinous of crimes deserve that. Rehabilitation should be done in the community, but also achieved in a way in which justice has been met for the victim and the criminal. Justice for the victim in which the criminal has been sufficiently punished or repaid the debt. Justice for the criminal in which crimes done to them and crimes they have been committed have been forgiven and the cycle has been broken, thus securing the criminals future as a citizen. However, to use a clichéd sound bite, tackle crime – tackle the causes of crime. It is true; the reasons behind people committing crimes need to be addressed in order to break the cycle before it starts. A lot of the causes will stem from early childhood and education, not being widely read on the subject I have not much to offer, but I believe education to be the key to creating part of our sustainable economy. Children are malleable, education is the best way to mould them into the ideal, not perfect no one is perfect, person. I am not talking about literacy and numeracy, though that is important, I am talking about relationship formation, communication skills, and leadership development – things that are often learnt in private education or in adult life – need to be incorporated into the curriculum at an early age. On the topic of specific subjects, more attention needs to be given over to the languages, engineering and the sciences at an early stage, whilst making sure that the arts and humanities are not neglected.

Now onto the economy, well that which most regard as the economy. With the recent financial crisis, it has opened us up to a vulnerability we thought we would never see again, and has left us in rather a pickle. The current financial system has been proven not to work; there is individual and collective debt on scales never before seen in this country. Our economy is dependent upon oil, debt and the good will of the newcomers to the international stage. Our economy needs to be sustainable, once the visible economy is sustainable everything else should slot into place (do not rest on laurels!). Debt is fuelling our economy and there is no way out of it. The minimum wage does not even come close to raising people out of the debt cycle.

See http://ustoldfield.blogspot.com/2009/04/role-of-welfare-state-in-recession.html for more information on the minimum wage.

People are spending beyond their means are their lifestyles become more extravagant, life needs to be brought back to basics or we will perish in the sea of instability and unsustainability. There will be a call from many to retreat behind the walls and set up a protectionist line of defence. This is the worst possible action ever. Protectionism helps no one, it makes goods and services more expensive and embitters those exclude from the market. Rampant, unchecked capitalism is not the way forward either, that is a cause of this mess. But we need to shift our focuses towards other avenues of export such as green technology, pharmaceuticals etc. however we cannot neglect the importance of the financial sector in the global economy and it is something that needs to be nurtured so it is ethically led and works for the people that are its customers as well as its shareholders.

The most comprehensive analysis of the financial crisis I have come across is Vince Cable’s The Storm, (2009). For a historical perspective I direct you to Richard Acland’s What It Will be Like in the New Britain, (1942).

There are loads of books and articles on how to create a sustainable economy; I hope that what is here is a useful guide to start the thought process. There is no single answer, there are many, many wrong, and many right each with varying degrees of success and impact. It is up to each and every one of us to work together to create a reality from the vision of a sustainable economy. “Without vision, the people perish.”

A Brief Introduction to Women in the Industrial Revolution

2010-01-14T11:15:00.001Z

As Quataert states ‘the inclusion of women rewrote the parameters of class, one of the key working concepts in modern history.’ Gender history in the Industrial revolution is explicitly linked to Marxian class. However, this inclusion drew attention away from the mode of production and factories towards reproduction, family and patterns of consumption.

The family is influenced by gender roles in that the husband is the breadwinner and the wife is the homemaker. This impacted on women’s workplace role in that employment was secondary and subservient to the family. Davidoff and Hall’s Family Fortunes regards the family as a middle class phenomenon. It was a dynamic and adaptable institution. It formed social bands, gendered roles, and found ways of meeting various needs – much like a business arrangement. Ross and Smith regard the family as the very substance of people’s daily lives. It has been argued by Marx and many others that the family was oppressive and was directly linked to the exploitation and alienation of the proletariat from the mode of production. Recent studies into the family have focused on how the practices of the family might offer a way of thinking that allows for women’s own representation of their roles and identity. Samuel Johnson once said a family is ‘those who live in the same house’. This may be characteristic of the middle class whose household may include non-kin such as lodgers, servants, tutors, apprentices etc., but for the working classes, family is more immediate. This brings us onto the belief that in the 18th and 19th centuries, the family is synonymous with the separate spheres. The public male dominated sphere and the private female dominated sphere, as the centuries progressed this became less distinct, but still a major influence of the gender roles. The distinction also plays into the differences between women of different classes. Middle class women experienced an entirely different lifestyle than working class women. As the centuries develop the family is also redefined. In the 18th century the family is defined by a patriarchal head and by the 19th century a family is ‘not worthy of the name without a woman at its core.’ Contemporary critics would agree, albeit in a derogatory sense. ‘Women belong to the family and not to political society, and nature created them for domestic cares and not for public functions’ – Vicomte de Bonald. The division between the spheres of influence is entrenched in the belief of society, and indeed it was until mid-way through the 20th century, however there is still no true equality due to such issues as the stigmatisation of the househusband. There was, what can be described as, a sexual division of labour, though not necessarily an indicator of inequality as Abrams notes. Productive and reproductive work is valued in the household and community despite not having a monetary value attached to it.

As the economic situation changed, women’s production of goods and services was valued more and women’s role remained pivotal though less equal. With the middle classes women’s ‘traditional role’ was reinforced and embedded through networking in the aim of achieving social advancement for her children and/or husband. The role of working class women, on the other hand, became more production driven tying her into a patriarchal household system that incorporated both homemaking and wage-earning. The working woman challenged social perceptions. They were identified by maternal and marital status not as workers. Casual labourers or assistants not real workers characterised by the phrase ‘reserve army of labour’. Ogilvie has identified problems with speculating about women in employment: 1) we don’t yet know enough about the facts of women’s work. 2) Casual explanations have been partial and often in conflict 3) we don’t know the implications of women’s economic positions.

The effect of the industrial revolution on women can be summed up by the arguments of two historians. Clark argues that the capitalist economy destroyed family industries. It forced workers onto the wage market and left women disadvantaged and in a weak economic position. Pinchbeck argues that the industrial revolution created greater leisure time at home and relieved women of the drudgery of domesticity. Female workers had better conditions and an improved status in society. Industrialisation was the harbinger of a modern world in which female emancipation and statutory equality was achieved.

On Marx's Theory of History

2010-01-10T20:53:00.001Z

Marxism is a political, economic and historical theory developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. However, as historians, the historical theory is important to us, though the other two analyses do play their own role in the understanding of Marxism, because it is a very cohesive theory in the development of society and the understanding of the reasons behind change (this will be discussed later). Marxism has contributed hugely to the understanding of the past, not only is it easy to understand, it has a detailed model that explicitly explains the changes and developments in society. Marxism has also contributed to history in that some of Marx's analyses have directly contributed to history, by this I am referring to the Russian Revolution and the rise of Communism in the 20th Century.

"No theorist has been as analysed...in the 20th Century as Karl Marx. The reason behind this attention is far from being purely academic. No comparable modern thinker has had as much impact on parties and movements. Prior to the collapse of communism in Europe one-third of humanity was under regimes purportedly inspired by Marx's works."

Despite Marx's contributions to history, there are weaknesses to his theory. These have been picked apart by historians, economists and political scientists. The main criticism of Marxism is that the advent of communism is almost impossible. This critique rests heavily upon ideological lines, rather than anything else. But where does Marx's theory of history stand now? It has been argued that, rightly or wrongly, that Marxism has no place in history seeing as communism has proven to have failed with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. It was widely publicised that Communism and, therefore, Marxism was dead and buried. This seemed to be the case with no new theorists or historian taking the Marxist mantle. The question that will be answered later on is: does Marxism still have relevance today?

Marxism appeared in the mainstream consciousness of historians and social theorists with the advent of the Communist Manifesto in 1848. However Marx's theory of history developed when Marx was a student of Hegel. Because of Marx’s link to Hegel, his theory of history is similar, history is about labour and struggle, though Marx differs from Hegel in that Marx does not believe that history is about ‘disembodied spirit or the struggle of ideas’, but the struggle of individuals against each other and, more importantly, against class for their own aims and ideals. Marx's theory builds upon and critiques Hegelian historical theory and can be found, predominantly, in six works collectively known as 'The Materialist Conception of History', the most prominent of these works being The German Ideology. For Marx, history is separated into epochs; primitive communism; feudalism; capitalism; and true communism. Transitions between each epoch are characterised by class antagonisms developed in the mode of production between the base and the superstructure. The final transition between epochs would be the final overthrow of the superstructure as capitalism collapses in on itself and communism rises from the ashes. However, as is most things in history it is highly probable that the transitions between epochs are cyclical, so that in the end Marx's communism will lead to Feudalism and the struggle will begin again. The transition between epochs begins with the division of labour that occurs naturally, evolutionary, within the epochs as do the epochs themselves. The division of labour is the first antagonism and 'implies the contradiction between the interest of the individual...and the communal interest of all individuals'. As the epochs develop, so the division of labour becomes more complex. According to Marx, class struggle is always in existence, the struggle being between the exploiter and the exploited. Between those that work for a living and those that make a living from the work of others similar to slaves and slave-owners. The only way for the proletarians to lose their chains is through class consciousness. Once the proletariat realise they are being exploited by the bourgeoisie, they 'have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.' Class consciousness will lead to the proletarian revolution and thus to Marx's true communism.
The context in which Marx was writing was a period of revolution and industrialisation in Europe. 1848 was the year of revolution, with the exceptions of Great Britain and the Netherlands. Though not all the revolutions occurred in 1848, many countries experienced internal conflict a few years before of were affected by the tidal wave that swept over Europe. The middle classes were clamouring for reform, which Britain gave them in 1832, the working classes were agitated, though had almost no structure to the uprisings. It was almost perfect conditions for Marx’s proletariat revolution and the release of The Communist Manifesto in the February sort to inflame the situation and bring cohesion to the proletarian movement. However, the result of the revolutions of 1848 was nothing that Marx had wanted or predicted in his writings. 1848 left Europe largely unchanged, but the foundations were there as ‘society was cut in two: those who had nothing united in common envy, and those who had anything united in common terror’. The fifty-or-so years after were marred with concessions to the lower classes in a hope that 1848 would not be repeated. Alongside the revolutionary period, was also the tail end of the First Industrial Revolution, 1750-1850. The Industrial Revolution created the situations to make Marx’s communist utopia happen. It created the middle classes and an urban proletariat. It increased social and geographic mobility creating further antagonisms between the new classes and the existing aristocracy. In 1848, Marx’s dream almost came true, but it was not until 1917 that a revolution based upon Marxism was successful. The Bolshevik Revolution of October 1917 overthrew the Tsarist regime of Russia and quickly established the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It is still open to debate among historians as to whether Lenin, or Trotsky, would have done away with the Dictatorship once the White Armies had been dealt with. However, once Stalin became the General Secretary of the Party, the Dictatorship was there to stay and, with the emergence of the Soviet Union as a global super-state during the Cold War, secured Marx’s, albeit twisted, legacy in the annals of history.

Marx’s contribution to history is that of any ‘major social theorist of the past whose ideas can be drawn on, just like Malthus, or Smith, or Weber.’ Central to Marx’s theory is the mode of production, within is the dialectical relationship between the base of production, the proletariat, and the super-structure, the owners of production, and because of this the proletariat is divorced from their labour and antagonism ensues. Marx gives various examples throughout history that fits this model, throughout which the Division of Labour, a term coined by Adam Smith, is referred to as the cause for deepening of crises and further antagonisms. The earliest division of labour is within the family in a hunter gather society and is a natural but ‘limited extension to the family; patriarchal family chieftains, below them the members of the tribe, finally slaves.’ The division of labour in the family is used because of the etymology, which Blackledge points out, ‘which can be traced back to the Roman word familia which referred to the “total number of slaves belonging to one man”.’ As the current division develops, society becomes more advanced as there is more leisure time for the ‘masters’, more work for the slaves and more slaves through warfare, which is a product of the ‘extension of external relations’, this development will eventually lead into the next epoch, or form of ownership, ‘ancient communal and State ownership’. This form is characterised by the first cities as tribes’ band together in a common endeavour of development. This development cements the relationship between ‘citizens and slaves’ and through the increasing complexity of the division of labour ‘antagonism of town and country’ is starting to emerge. Because the relationship between citizen and slave is cemented, private property develops albeit on a primitive scale and, in its current stage, ‘subordinate to communal ownership.’ As the division of labour develops, society develops into feudalism. Feudalism extends from the country and is still based on the community, but instead of standing over slaves the lord over ‘the enserfed small peasantry.’ With the development of feudalism also comes an increased antagonism between town and country. Feudalism’s ‘counterpart in the towns in the shape of corporative property, the feudal organisation of trades’ otherwise known as Guilds. Property during the feudal period was ‘on the one hand of landed property with serf labour chained to it, and on the other of the labour of the individual with small capital commanding the labour of journeymen.’ This development of corporative property led into the development of the capitalist epoch. There has been disagreement about the transition between epochs, some say that it must happen through a sudden and often violent shift, either through war or revolution. However it appears that Marx almost spells out the cause for the transition of epochs. The transition is through the development of the division of labour, as the division of labour becomes more complex, so too does society until it evolves into the next epoch. It is an evolutionary process, ‘it is remarkable how Darwin recognises among beasts and plants his English society with its division of labour, competition, opening-up of new markets, “inventions”, and the Malthusian “struggle for existence”.’ However the two interpretations of Marx can be applied to the majority of historical events and periods. Despite Marx’s stress on the importance of Empiricism, history is an imperfect science, and Marx has been criticised by Carr because of periodization. ‘The division of history into periods is not a fact, but a necessary hypothesis or tool of thought, valid in so far as it is illuminating, and dependent for its validity on interpretation.’ To be highly philosophical about it, all interpretations of Marx’s theory of history are correct and incorrect at the same time. However, the most crucial part of Marx’s theory that has caused the most contention is the final transition between the capitalist and communist epochs. Ball sums of the transition between the two in a brief and simple flow diagram:

"Economic crisis....immiseration of the proletariat....revolutionary class consciousness....seizure of state power....dictatorship of the proletariat.... withering away of the state....communism"

But, that is assuming there is a revolution, as Ball also points out, that there are many possibilities and many interpretations that could lead to communism.

"One possibility is that a nationwide general strike could cripple the economy and bankrupt the capitalists overnight. Another possibility is that there would be a bloody civil war…A third possibility…is that the bourgeoisie would be overthrown not by bullets but by ballots."

Only through this action can people be ‘truly free, free, that is, from exploitation…and free to develop their many-sided personalities.’ Not forgetting the importance of labour, for even in a communist society everyone has to participate in the running of the commune. Marx’s attitude towards labour was similar to Adam Smith in that they both value free labour, but both interpretations over the meaning of free labour were different. For Smith, free labour was free to work wherever one wished, for Marx it was freedom from slavery and working for another man’s profit. For Smith, profiteering was not a problem, if it did cause a problem the market would correct it. The biggest criticism of Marxism is that communism is unachievable, though this rests heavily upon interpretations of human nature. For those on the left, humans are naturally co-operative and social and that by working together ‘the prospects for human development and personal growth are considerable.’ For liberals and those on the right believe that humans are self-seeking individualists and stress the importance of the individual. Depending on one’s own personal interpretation of human nature, Marx’s communism could or could not work. In every society one will come across those that will work against the grain of the majority, and that is the flaw of Marxism. Marx’s communism will only work if those involved will want it to work, otherwise there will be more bloodshed in attempting to get rid of ‘class-traitors’. However, Marx’s ‘view of history as the story of progress seems naïve in a century that has discovered the dark side of the human psyche’ not to mention the many totalitarian regimes purportedly based on Marxism. If Marx had foreseen the terrors carried out in the name of Marxism ‘he might have espoused a markedly different, and perhaps more pessimistic, philosophy of history.’ As Orwell alluded to in 1984, revolutions change the ruling class but the proletariat remain the proletariat.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 it was declared, by Francis Fukuyama, that history had ended because liberalism was the superior and, now, only ideology. Communism, and with it socialism and totalitarianism, had fallen on its sword and was utterly defeated and destroyed. Hegel’s struggle of ideas had come to a climatic end, the Soviet Union with its economic and social models based on socialism and Marxism had been defeated by the Western free market liberal democracy of the United States of America. History had evolved into its final form, that of liberalism. In light of recent world events, Fukuyama would appear to be incorrect in his analysis seeing as there is still a continuation of the Hegelian conflict of ideas between proponents of Sharia Islam and Evangelical Christianity. However, with Fukuyama’s death knoll to Marxism it has become a background school of study. The majority of Marxist historians are either old or dead with very little fresh blood to maintain the ranks of comrades. But, does Marxism still have relevance today? Yes it does, like it always has done. It is a valuable and coherent model for the analysis of broad history and specific events. A fantastic example of this can be seen in the recent financial crisis, a prediction Marx made in Das Kapital is easily transmuted into the situation.

"Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and mechanical products, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to the bankruptcy of the banks, which will have to be nationalised, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism."

It is still yet to be seen whether Marx’s final prediction will come true, but he has correctly predicted the current financial crisis.

In conclusion, Marx’s theory of history is important to us, as historians, because it offers a cohesive model for the analysis of human development, economics, human nature, and, more importantly, the reason behind the changes. Marx has created a model that fits, almost, seamlessly onto the different periods of time. From the primitive tribal epoch through to modern capitalist age, Marx has observed and, in some cases, predicted the course of history. His reason for the transition between epochs is just as remarkable. The transition is through the development of the division of labour, as the division of labour becomes more complex, so too does society until it evolves into the next epoch. It is an evolutionary process, ‘it is remarkable how Darwin recognises among beasts and plants his English society with its division of labour, competition, opening-up of new markets, “inventions”, and the Malthusian “struggle for existence”.’ Despite Marx’s contributions to history, directly and indirectly, he has been criticised by many for his belief in communism. Many do not believe that communism is obtainable because it is too idealistic and utopian. Others point to regimes that claim to be communist or Marxist, but instead carry out heinous crimes against fellow humans. If Marx had foreseen the terrors carried out in the name of Marxism ‘he might have espoused a markedly different, and perhaps more pessimistic, philosophy of history.’ Marxism was seemingly dealt a death blow with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the declaration of the ‘end of history’. Liberalism was declared the victor, and a man long dead could do nothing about it. However with recent events it would appear that Marx is as relevant today as he was in the Nineteenth century. As noted by Cable, Marx has successfully predicted the current financial crisis and his analysis of global events are very much grounded in empiricism. However, with very few historians taking up positions in the Marxist school of thought it is declining, though no less important.

Back Seat Driver with Road Rage!

2009-12-20T11:54:00.002Z

Yesterday, as I was travelling to work I was met with the most annoying of circumstances. I hate being late and public transport does not help my disgust of tardiness and shame of one day being late. I have to catch two buses to get to work, the A and the D. Usually the A is always on time. Yesterday it was late - 10 minutes late. I was going to be late for my connection. I was furious and in a foul mood. Bearing in mind this was 8am and freezing temperatures I had good reason to begin with. Anyway the A arrived in the city centre at the time when the D should have left, making up good time for its lateness. Anyway, thankfully the D was late, as usual, much to my relief as I would not be too late for work. I was the only one that boarded the D and sat up near the front. As the bus left the stop, a man was standing in the middle of the road. The driver was getting furious with the man, shouting at him and honking his horn. Without thinking I said these words: "Fucking hit him!" The bus driver laughed heartily and revved the engine. The man quickly moved believing he would be run over. The driver turned to me and said: "You've got some road rage for a passenger", I responded with: "I hate to be late". Needless to say, I was early. The moral of this story is make them laugh or make them scared either way you get to work on time.

Unitary Exeter

2009-12-17T14:30:00.000Z

In the Committee's own report it states that the best proposal would be two unitary authorities; Exeter and Exmouth, and Devon rural. This proposal, they thought, met all the criteria set by the former Secretary of State, Hazel Blears MP, and is upheld by the current Secretary of State, John Denham MP. The criteria for the unitary authorities are as follows: Affordability; Broad Cross Section of Support; Strategic Leadership; Neighbourhood Empowerment; and Value for Money Services. On its own, Exeter meets the criteria. However, in the end, the Committee sided with Devon County Council in proposing a Devon wide unitary authority abolishing the current two-tier system we have in place at the moment.

In all the different proposals the criterion of Affordability is met, largely on the basis of a cut in administrative costs. However, when it came to the second criterion, Broad Cross Section of Support, is when problems arise with the Committee's findings and research methods. The sample that the Committee took was 21000, a sizeable number but not even 10% of the population of Devon. Now to have a look at the break down. 35% supported a Devon wide unitary authority. 16% supported Exeter & Exmouth and Devon rural authorities. 21% supported alternatives for Exeter's unitary status. In total 37% support Exeter's bid for unitary authority status of some sort. However, in rural Devon there was strong support for the status quo. When it came to the consultation with the various councils in Devon it appears that political bias came into play. Generally speaking Devon rural is Conservative and Exeter is Labour or Liberal Democrat. To have separate the two areas is a political advantage to all three parties, but to have a Devon wide unitary authority would mean that the Conservative party would be dominant in Devon and more importantly in Exeter as the interests of Exeter would be subverted to that of rural Devon. The Committee's report also suggested that Police, Fire Service Authorities and the Primary Care Trust were in favour of Devon wide unitary. I would like to point out that Devon County Councillors sit on the boards of the Devon and Cornwall Police Authority and the Devon and Somerset Fire Service. The reasoning behind the support was because it was 'too complex to relate to two or more unitary authorities.' I would also like to point out that Devon and Somerset Fire Service already manages to provide its service across five unitary authorities seeing as they provide for Plymouth, Torbay and Somerset's two unitary and one borough authorities. The Committee's report also states that there is a lot of support for the Exeter & Exmouth and Devon rural proposal from the public and in an age of supposed democracy is that not the opinion that should be listened to?
In regards to the third criteria, Strategic Leadership, Exeter City Council has a stronger Strategic Leadership that Devon County Council could ever hope for, and one of the fears of taking Exeter out of Devon is that Devon will lack focus, but why should Exeter have to suffer for the ineffectiveness of Devon? It should not have to. The business community prefers a Devon wide unitary, in that 'they considered that it would have the ability to provide the most effective strategic direction on issues such as transportation and
economic growth.' I counter this by pointing out that it is Exeter City Council that brought the Met Office to Exeter, that Exeter City Council is leading the development of the Science, Business and Sky Parks to the East of the City. That Exeter City Council is leading Devon and the region in economic growth. In regards to transportation issues, Exeter is again leading the way with the recent addition to 50 miles of cycle paths across the city. There is no reason why these developments should stop indirectly benefiting Devon once Exeter is granted unitary status. There is a reason that these developments might stop if Devon is granted council wide unitary status in that the funds set aside by the current Exeter City administration will be diverted off the other areas.
With the fourth criterion, Neighbourhood Empowerment, the Committee's proposals do not met this criterion in that it will be undemocratic and unrepresentative. One councillor representing 7400 people, even in that number the interests vary massively and cannot be successfully represented unless there are more councillors or a separation of Exeter and Exmouth, and Devon rural. Under the proposals for a Devon wide unitary authority Exeter's interests will be subverted to the interests of rural Devon. The fifth criterion, Value for Money of Services, like Affordability is largely met by all the different proposals.

I implore all of you to support Exeter's bid for a unitary authority or, at the very least maintain the status quo. This can be done by emailing the consultation address DevonStructures@communities.gsi.gov.uk or by writing to Unitary Structures Team, Zone 3/J1, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5DU. It will be a sad day if Exeter's interests and ambitions and subverted to those of Devon County.

A Brush with Disability (ish)

2009-11-27T20:17:00.004Z

Before I start, I would like to declare that I do not consider myself to have a disability. The situation I currently find myself in can only be put down to stupidity, bad luck and a nasty spell of foul weather.

At around 14:20 on the 24th November in the Two Thousand and Ninth year of our Lord I was struck a cruel and heavy blow to my otherwise young and beautiful life, struck down in the prime of my life by a mighty gust of wind. This foul creature blew me off my brave and valiant steed, which I hasten to add was struck a cruel blow in having one of its limbs cracked, broken, whatever you wish to call it. I dared not re-mount my steed for causing greater injury to myself and the beast. Returning to my realm I was quickly taken to the Houses of Healing where I was mended, after a fashion, and told I had snapped ligaments in my hip. In layman's terms, I was cycling to work when a strong wind threw me off my bike and into a wooden barrier, thus damaging myself and my bicycle's pedal.

I was offered crutches or a walking stick to aid in my recovery. Seeing as crutches hurt my wrists and are rather unsightly, I opted for the walking stick - a dignified and gentrified option befitting my casual blasé attitude towards my own life and safety.

I have, however, become unstuck with peoples attitudes towards me, mainly strangers and the occasional person I am acquainted with. Concerning strangers I find that females (in general) are want to indulge and pity my current state - I despise this, they would not treat me this way if I had not had the stick, or indeed crutches if that was my preferred choice. Males, on the other hand, are less sympathetic indeed bordering on the mildly amusing by cracking jokes or otherwise ignoring it - I prefer this approach.

However it got me thinking, despite not being permanently disabled, people have already judged me before they have even understood the circumstances in which I find myself. I guess it's tricky for some people - how do they act around people they perceive to be disabled? Do they ignore it (and sometimes the person), laugh at it (perhaps causing offence without finding out the cause for disability), or do they pity (motherly/fatherly gesture or superiority)? All in all, it is also down to the individual in how they perceive these gestures. I don't like pity, not for any inferiority complex but, because I myself do not feel pity and would not want anyone to feel pity for me.

Just treat me as a person regardless of ability.

John Lewis Vs easyJet

2009-11-13T17:38:00.007Z

As it was announced earlier this month, Labour and the Conservatives have come up with their own style of provision for public services, each unique to that particular strain of ideology. Labour's co-operative, or mutual, versus the Conservatives' small state no frills society - if you can't afford to pay for it, tough.

Labour have divulged that the majority of the public sector, especially hospitals and schools, would be transferred into co-operatives. The basis of a co-operative is to increase community involvement and participation in the running of the state on a local level.

Tessa Jowell:We think mutuals have a much broader potential across the public sector, especially now where they can become an expression of the new national soul post-credit crunch.

The mutuals/co-operatives are a product of the backlash against the unaccountability that has plagued Westminster, Whitehall and Councils up and down the Country in the past year or so. The proposed plan is Labour at it's best and purest form - Democratic Socialism. It is a welcome surprise to see Labour abandon some of the laissez-faire, Thatcherist principles of New 'Labour'.

For more information on cooperatives see http://www.co-operative.coop/
http://www.johnlewis.com/
as some famous examples of cooperatives/mutuals.

The Conservative approach, on the other hand, is following the easyJet principle of business of no frills, if you want more pay for it. It seems to be reminiscent of Thatcher's and New 'Labour's' policy of 'help those who help themselves'. The Conservatives' do have a partnership scheme to involve the local community be relying on private individuals etc - resembling the Victorian principles of 'charity begins at home'- in an attempt to role back the state.

For more information on easyJet see http://www.easyjet.com/

In terms of business, John Lewis is actually expanding its business during the recession, whereas easyJet are having to increase prices and charges in order to stay aloft. The economy has already dictated which model is better, but if you have yet to leave the fence you might want to see what the Lib Dems have to offer.

Retailers Never Die

2009-10-30T20:20:00.002Z

The reason behind this bold statement is because necessity will always overrule convenience. The Internet is convenient and has made life and shopping easier, you can now shop in the comfort of your own home and purchase items with the click of a button. But, there are some areas of retailing where you need a 'hands-on' approach to shopping - take bed buying as an example. The bed is an integral part of life and to buy a mattress or frame that is wrong for your body shape and size is a huge mistake and will cost you in days of work through illness and, ultimately, a shorter life span. What if things go horribly wrong with a recent purchase, sometimes the telephone and email cannot replace face-to-face human contact. Most people, those with social skills, need physical human contact in order to reassure themselves that they are still human beings with emotions and problems, and these emotions and problems are actually being listened to and emphasised with, rather than the false sympathy of 'I understand' down the end of the line.

Retailing will unlikely remain in the form that it has been for the last hundred plus years, that is obvious. High Street retailing has taken a massive blow over the last decade with the advent and rise of Internet retailers such as Amazon. Woolworth's has disappeared from the High Streets and other High Street retailers are reporting losses on their store sales - Internet sales, however, are on the increase. I can well imagine that within the next 20 years the High Street will be all but obsolete and many current retailers will be operating out of regional depots with the occasional customer service centre where individuals can physically talk to someone if they have a problem. Specialist retailers, however, will take over the High Street, moving from the periphery and into the CBD (Central Business District) to fill the void left by conventional retailers. High Street retailing will never die, but it will decline and be move off to different areas - the Internet with separate customer service centres. The future is bleak if you work in retail, otherwise it is more convenient.

The Art of Bicycle Flirting

2009-10-29T16:17:00.004Z

Bicycle flirting is a new craze, which I have just thought of due to recent experiences, it involves flirting through the medium of bicycles. Bicycle flirting, bike flirting or cycle flirting is the new trend for all environmentally friendly people. There are many stages of bike flirting, some yet to be discovered by the creator, but all with the ultimate goal of furthering bicycle-human relationships. This is not some weird fetish that involves actual relations with your bike, but with other cyclists. All stages usually involve two passing cyclists, though may also be instigated by overtaking or in groups. The art of bike flirting is usually helped if one has a set route to and from work and it has cyclists going the other way, again with the same or similar routine. Bicycle flirting can be used on almost anyone and does not have to be a serious endeavour, much like real flirting. You can do it to the same or opposite sex, the only barrier is your own inhibitions.

Step 1: The Acknowledgement
Depending on the gender of the other cyclist this may involve a courteous nod or a smile all the way through to blowing a kiss. I myself prefer the cheeky wink. The benefit of the cheeky wink is that if the other cyclist does not reciprocate one can feign dust eye. The whole purpose of the acknowledgement is to gauge interest from the other cyclist.

Step 2: The Passing Comment
A Comment in passing is blurted out as you pass the other cyclists. Phrases used may include: "Nice Bike"; "Great Gear"; "Ring that bell one more time" along with other phrases and compliments that can be given out at short notice and in a short space of time. Try to avoid the insults or a tone of voice that could turn a compliment into an insult.

Step 3: The Admiration
The admiration usually occurs after the previous steps have been enacted, however it may be instigated immediately after step 2. The Admiration is when both cyclists come to a stand still and will give the two cyclists to introduce each other and compare bicycles. Accessories, gearing and brake systems are immediate hits. A good introduction is "what speed is that?" or "I just love your reflective top!" These ice-breakers will open up to further discussion about each others bicycles and you may end up swapping bicycle chassis numbers (by that I mean phone numbers).

Step 4: Riding the Bike
This is when you let, or get to try out the other persons bike, thus furthering the admiration and deepening the bicycle-human relationship. This usually immediately follows the admiration, though do not be disheartened if the other cyclist has to rush off for work or some other appointment. Also, do not be offended if the other cyclist does not want to ride your bike, your bike may just be at an inconvenient height or indeed shit.

Step 5: The Bicycle Date
As weird as the title may seem, it is actually a normal date to see a movie or go to a fancy restaurant. However, the mode of transport to get to the date must be a bicycle. If you do not arrive on a bicycle, or have a valid excuse for not arriving on one, you have failed in the art of bicycle flirting.

Once you have attained Step 5 in the Art of Bicycle Flirting, you have mastered the Art and can be happy and content in having reached such a high level of attainment. The are no further steps to learn, you have possibly found your future cycling partner and may already be considering a cyclist wedding.

Enjoy attempting and, hopefully, succeeding as a bicycle flirt. Environmentally friendly and smooth journey wishes - The Creator

Cry Financial Reform!

2009-10-26T15:46:00.004Z

For centuries Britain, more specifically London, has been the financial capital of the world. Why, with the economic crisis, should anything be different? Because it has been shown that it does not work, I would not be sold bold as to suggest greed or immorality that has shown it up, for the financial sector operates a morally and without human emotion or want - it just operates. I would say that we find ourselves in such a pickle is through want of reform. Not necessarily reform whereby the banks and other financial institutions operate in such a way that the outcome can only benefit society in such a way that only idealists can dream of.

As much as many people would think of me I am not an idealist, I am a pragmatist or, in IR terminology, a realist. Yes I do have ideals, as does everyone even bankers, but I also know that not everyone has the same ideals, values and principles as myself and, therefore, they are defunct even before I have thought of them.

What is laid out beneath is not an idealised version, it is a pragmatic approach for reform that the financial sector is desperately craving for. It is not even a complex plan for reform, it is in fact incredibly simple - A RULEBOOK - not a guide, as is the norm but a proper rulebook governing and dictating what can and what cannot be done. The reason for this proposal is that the financial sector operates in a gray area, its role and rules need to be defined into 'black' and 'white'. What needs to be in the rulebook I am not even go to approach, it is not my job nor my interest, I shall leave that up to the Governor of the Bank of England, the FSA Chief, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and their respective minions. The sector, indeed the operational capability of the country needs to be reformed and what better situation to do it in?! The recession has created the perfect conditions to effectively start afresh. There is only one 3 word mantra needed: REFORM, REFORM, REFORM!

Growth?! Oh Wait It's The Same Old Recession

2009-10-23T19:54:00.001+01:00

So I was wrong with my economic forecasting. Instead of modest economic growth of 0.1% or even 0.0% to get us out of the recession, the ONS today reported a 0.4% contraction in the economy for Q3. Not only is this bad news for me, my pride has taken a huge blow, but it is bad news for the country as this is now the longest recession since records began (at the turn of the century). It’s not a long time since records have begun, but it will be the most memorable since 1929. It’s not every day that the world is brought close to economic destruction because of ‘greed’ and financial speculation or whatever one wishes to attribute to the collapse of global capitalism as we knew it. The world has changed and so must I change my forecast and reassess my standpoint on the economy. I have thus made a rather conservative estimate for economic growth to be reported in Q1 of next year, ideally February, though that would be difficult for me assess, not having access to all the datasets.

What can I attribute to the colossal collapse of my prediction? Cuts in Government spending. As anyone with a basic understanding of economics knows, the economy largely relies upon faith, and there was a lack of faith in the government and indeed any political party that talked prematurely of cuts. I ignored the recent slumps in manufacturing because manufacturing is almost negligible in this economy. I was optimistic and hopeful when they started advocating cuts, but they were dashed this morning with the dreaded 0.4% contraction. The reason why I attribute cuts in Government spending to the continuation of the recession is that businesses fear going under. With the cut in spending, it means less money to the private sector, not just the ‘bloated’ public sector. No one will mention it out loud, because it will cause panic in the country, but it is whispered in the boardrooms and in the office cubicles. Cuts to the public sector will invariably lead to cuts in government funds to the private sector. As the Government tightens its belt, so too must the banks and companies of Britain. It is a lose-lose situation. The relationship between public and private sector is mutualistc symbiosis – both benefit from one another when they are well, otherwise both fail.

Almost everyone blames the banks for this crisis and almost everyone disagrees with the Government for the bailing out of the banks. But what were they supposed to do? Let the banks collapse? Let the global economy sink to a level in which it can never again return? Other options were non-existent. But it did not go far enough, one of the now forgotten causes of this collapse and subsequent recession is housing. The construction industry, whether it be housing or other buildings, has been rather neglected during this recession. There is a housing shortage in this country, which pushes up the prices of housing. Prices become unattainable and people who cannot afford mortgages are granted them because there needs to be a movement in the housing market. Perhaps the best way to stimulate the housing market is, not to make banks give out mortgages reminiscent of Freddie Mac and Fanny May, but to build more houses thus forcing the prices down meaning that they are affordable and the mortgages approved are actually to those that can afford them. It is not rocket science, it is basic economics.

It is a shame that we are still in this recession, I was rather hoping to call myself an economic genius but alas....Besides, where one door closes a whole wall falls down – and the cracks are appearing. Ignore the green shoots of recovery, by the end of Q1 we will be basking in the bright light, not just of recovery but, of economic growth. As I have spoken, so it shall be! (I wish)

A Letter to Polly Toynbee

2009-10-14T15:13:00.001+01:00

Dear Polly,

Thank you for your commentary in Tuesday’s Guardian (13/10/09). It is very rare for anyone, besides public sector workers, come out in defense for the bedrock of our society. What yourself, and indeed almost everyone, neglects to mention is that the public sector needs to be pruned, just to keep its shape and so that it continues to blossom and remain vibrant. This should not be confused with the mad-dash hacking of the Tories, and a very small minority in the Labour Party, which will leave the public sector as a mutilated corpse with no resembelance remaining to the beautiful institution.

I am not a civil servant, I am a post-graduate student, my family on the other hand are employed by the State. I do not know if this influences my persuasion or not, nor do I care if it does. Once I am done with my own education I want to go into the public sector, not because of the ‘comfortable salaries’, but because it is a duty to my country and its citizens.In this respect, the public sector is much like the Armed Forces, despite the lack of risk in fighting a rather pointless war in some backwater Country, but it is a duty nonetheless – hence the term ‘Civil Servant’.

In recent times there has become a blurred distinction between true civil servants (employed directly by the State or Local Government) and outsourced employees, who carry out public sector tasks despite being in the private sector. Many of the mistakes and ‘bloated’ salaries can be found in this ‘outsourced’ sector. Because of this blurred distinction, the public sector takes a lot of unwarranted flak from all sides. It is a sad time when the public sector takes the blame, ot only for the ailing private sector, but also for mistakes caused by politicians, and regrettably cuts are destined to happen. I’ll take as an example, Exeter City Council (ECC). ECC is one of the better performing councils, yet it has a £3m budgetary defecit. Why? For a variety of reasons such as, reduced central allocation of funding, an ageing population increasingly relying on the 60-plus bus pass and an expensive procurement procedure, among others. I am not going to point fingers, because these are not to blame, they are just symptoms in a regrettable decline of public services during the recession. But £3m has to come from somewhere and it will not manifest itself in an increase in Council Tax.

How to go about reducing the defecit in general – cuts are an option, but not a very good one. Procurement can be cut, outsourcing can be scaled back, QUANGOs can be removed, but this will not happen, instead unemployment will be increased among public sector workers. Increased community involvement in the running of national and local government is an option, only if it goes beyond Neighbourhood Action Groups (or whatever you wish to call them). Stop the consultation and bring in real community involvement . Let local communities take pride in the area they live in, actual running and maintenance of their area – such as maintenance of public green spaces. It is a vote winner, but the danger is that it relies on the good nature of human beings. But is that not what Britain is supposed to be like – an nation of good natured jolly fellows? We are Tolkein’s Hobbits for a reason, lets embrace that good natured side to us and work alongside our neighbours, niot just for our own neighbourhoods and micro-communities but for the Nation as a whole. Great Britain does not have to be great on the International Stage, but it does have to be great as a Domestic Entity. Another option to stop cuts across the board is to raise and restructure the income tax system. Make the system fairer. As George Osborne said last week, “it is going to be painful and we are all in this together” – right words, wrong context. It is painful and it will be ‘more painful’ for top earners as they will have to pay a more equal share for the upkeep of civilised society and we are all in this together – regardless of race, class or creed. How can we as a Nation and society prosper is people cannot fiscally make ends meet? Our Nation only does as well as those on the bottom, not on the top (as is the common misconception) – in this respect we should be ashamed to call ourselves a First World Country. Politicians quibble about the tax-free personal allowance, but even with Vince’s drastic improvement – it is not enough to live upon, survive maybe, but certainly not live. My hat goes off to Vince for addressing such a contentious issue. People do not like taxes because they are ‘too high’ – I say they are not high enough! If you have a progressive taxation system you increase the government revenue and you also redistribute wealth, relying less upon the welfare state and more upon self provision (see table below). I was speaking to a Dane recently and their basic tax is 30%! That is nearer to our top band (excluding the £150000 cap) of 37%. Their top band is about 60% - needless to say they were surprised at how low our tax is. An increase in taxation does not mean a lower quality of life, in fact quite the opposite as Government has more money to spend on welfare and infrastructure, not just for the poorest or ‘scroungers’, as the Tories would like us to believe, but for everyone. At the end it will be painless and bliss and we will be glad to have been through this together.

The problem is if a Conservative Government gets to Number 10 – cuts will be inevitable. It only seems fitting that the last section of your commentary about the declaration of war on the public sector by Gorgeous George and Dashing Dave coincides with Thatcher’s birthday. I was too young to remember Thatcher’s Britain but I still felt, and continue to feel, her legacy.

Thank you once again for making a public stand in favour of the Public Sector and against the Cocaine fuelled Bullingdon Club rampage that is set to reak havoc on this country over the next Parliament.

Warmest Regards

Ust Oldfield

Pre-Tax Band

Tax Percentage

Post-Tax Band

0-10 000

0

0-10 000

10-15 000

10

9-13 500

15-20 000

15

12.75-17 000

20-30 000

20

16-24 000

30-40 000

30

21-28 000

40-50 000

40

24-30 000

50-60 000

45

27.5-33 000

60-150 000

50

30-75 000

In excess of 150 000

75

>0.25p

PS I apologise if I have seemed to have gone on a bit - the public sector is something very close to my heart.

Pigs DO Fly

2009-10-09T10:34:00.005+01:00

This week, nay these few days are very topsy-turvy in the world. Barack Obama gets a Nobel Peace Prize on the pretext of 'Hope' and the Conservative Party are fighting on behalf of the poor people of Britain (I'm sure that's comforting to those that struggle to put bread on the table).

It was declared today that Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States of America would receive the Nobel Peace Prize. The reason behind the award was

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future,"

What about Jesus? I'm not saying that Obama is the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, he might very well be, but I'll let the Vatican decide that one. The thing that bugs me most is that he hasn't actually done anything, peace has not been forged in the Middle East, Children still starve in Africa. Iran and North Korea are still considered threats. Limited gestures, that might as well be considered mocking, about the reduction of nuclear arms - no country in their right mind will give up their last line of defense - but I digress. Others have done more for Peace, like that dynmaic duo Blair and Clinton, than Obama. You can't people awards in the vain hope that they'll achieve what they promised - the world does not work like that, but apparently it does.

On another matter. Yesterday David Cameron, illustrous leader of the Conservative Party and all ready self-proclaimed Prime Minister of Great Britain, announced that he was standing up for the poorest of society, WHAT?! I had to self-administer CPR as my heart just stopped when I heard that. Was I dreaming? Was he joking?

Mr Cameron said the "longer we wait for a credible plan, the bigger the bill for our children to pay" and asked what was "compassionate" about spending "more on debt interest than on helping the poorest children".

Attacking the Labour government he said they, not the "wicked Tories", had made "the poorest poorer" and made inequality greater

He then proceeded to attack the 'big-government' of Labour. Big Government? Really? Tory style small governemnt got us into the financial mess that we now find ourselves in. Rolling back the State during a Recession is a bad idea Dave, anyone knows that. I struggle to accept these false truths from Dave, he might have good intentions, but I do not trust his Party to administer the good-will he was dishing out by the truckload yesterday. The Tory Party are the ones who love big business not little people, especially poor people! It showed at the Tory Conference, when the lobbyists of big business struggled to fit themselves into a meetign hall with PPCs. MPs and Councillors.

If the past 24 hours has taught me anything - Pigs DO Fly, and the fly exceedingly well

Pensions and the Conservatives

2009-10-06T15:30:00.002+01:00

As I am sure you are all aware, this week is the Conservative Party Conference or #conconf as the hastag states. This morning David Cameron was telling the BBC his big plan for saving money through the pension system. The country can save £13bn a year if the pension age for men is raised from 65 to 66 beginning in 2016. 2016?! That's a long way off and this country needs money fast!

All parties have more or less ruled out an increase in income tax - bad mistake guys - and planning for 2016 when then finances should be in order, or near to , does not go far enough. There is something wrong with Gorgeous George and Dashing Dave. I digress.

What any political party now needs to do, at the expense of those nearing retirement age is to raise the retirement age to 68 for both male and female, and with immediate effect. Through legislation females will be on par with males in regards to pensionable age in 2026. What?! The Tories won't do anything about it, and neither will the others. I am a proponent of equality, but come on, that's taking the Michael. If the retirement age for both male and female is raised to 68 with immediate effect, this could potentially save the Treasury £143bn a year (based on the Conservative Party figures for raising the male retirement age to 66 at £13bn a year).

If, following the Conservative forecasts, the male retirement age is increased to 66, saving £13bn a year. If that is increased to 3 years at 68 the saving is £39bn a year. For females, who retire at 60, the retirement age is extended by 8 years to 68 the saving is £104bn a year. The two combined being a total saving of £143bn. There we have, a simple and far reaching plan to tackle, not only a funding crisis, but a pension and equality crisis. Take stock all ye politicians. The future is bright, the future is me

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch of the Constitution of the United Kingdom

2009-09-23T11:29:00.002+01:00

The Constitution of the United Kingdom

Preamble

We the People of the United Kingdom, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
________________________________________
Article I - The Legislative Branch

Section 1 - The Legislature

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Parliament of the United Kingdom, which shall consist of a House of Lords and a House of Commons.

Section 2 - The House of Commons

The House of Commons shall be composed of Members chosen every fifth Year by the People of the many constituencies not numbering more than six hundred. The constituencies being composed on numbers of population ranging from one hundred thousand to two hundred thousand equally, depending on the population of the Nation as the time. The boundaries of the constituencies shall be redrawn accordingly with shifts in the demographics. Each commoner shall have one vote.

The requirements for office are as follows: He/she shall be of Eighteen Years of Age, and been five years a citizen of the United Kingdom and, when elected, be an inhabitant of the Constituency in which he/she shall be chosen.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any constituency, the Commons shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Commons shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Section 3 - The House of Lords

The House of Lords of the United Kingdom shall be half composed of two Peers from each County – numbering eighty six for the mainland, six for Northern Ireland, two each for Greater London, Greater Manchester, West Midlands, West Yorkshire and Greater Glasgow, two each for the Channel Islands and the Isle of Mann, totalling one hundred and four in all – for one term of ten Years; and each Peer shall have one Vote.

The Peers for the counties shall be elected at alternate intervals being five years apart.

The other half of the House shall be appointed and composed of one of three criteria, numbering one hundred and four in all. The first criteria being an expert in any chosen field and deriving from heads of business, charities, professions, unions, institutes etc. These experts will remain a peer for as long as they hold their office. The second criteria being a People’s Peer, these are extraordinary citizens nominated by their contemporaries for service to the community, society or country. These People’s Peers will remain peers for life or until they decide to retire. The Third criteria being former Commons members of the Executive and have served in the same cabinet position for the lifetime of a Parliament being Five Years. These Peers remain so for life or until they decide to retire. All appointed Peers must be confirmed by the House of Commons in at least two-thirds attendance and at least two-thirds of the vote. Each peer shall have one vote.

The requirements for Office are as follows: He/she shall be of Twenty One Years of Age, and been ten years a citizen of the United Kingdom and, when elected, be an inhabitant of the County in which he/she shall be chosen.

The House of Lords shall choose their Speaker and other Officers, and shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on Oath of affirmation and the Speaker shall preside. No person shall be convicted without the Peers being two-thirds present and in agreement by two-thirds.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honour, Trust or Profit under the United Kingdom: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Section 4 – Elections and Meetings

Elected members shall be elected on the Alternative Vote System.

Voting shall be compulsory and a £100 fine imposed for non-attendance unless reason such as incapacitation is given and verified. All citizens shall be educated up to a standard as to understand the constitution, politics and policy debated.

Parliament shall assemble on the Third day of January each year.

Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, be entered on the Journal.

Section 6 - Compensation

Parliamentarians shall receive monetary compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United Kingdom.

No Parliamentarian shall, during the Time for which he/she was elected, be appointed to any civil or private Office under the Authority of the United Kingdom or any other Nation, or the compensation whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office, shall be an elected Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Section 7 - The Budget, Legislative Process, Veto

All bills relating to the Budget and for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Commons, but the House of Lords may propose or concur with Amendments as on other bills. The Budget cannot be vetoed.

A bill can be introduced at any level, be it by the Commons, Lords or Executive. Once a bill is introduced it must frst be discussed and passed by the Commons. If a bill is rejected by the Commons, the bill is deemed Dead and cannot be resurrected until after the next election to the House of Commons. It may be resurrected prior with the concurrence of two-thirds of the Lords, being in two-thirds attendance. Once a bill has gained a simple majority by members in two-thirds attendance it gets passed to the House of Lords. The Lords must then discuss the bill and get passed by a simple majority by members in two-thirds attendance. If the bill is rejected by the Lords it must go back to the Commons with recommendations for reconsideration by the Commons. The Lords can only do this for at the most three times before it bypasses the Lords and goes to the Monarch for approval. Once a bill has been passed by both Houses, it will go to the Monarch to be signed and thus becomes Law. All debate, Yeas and Nays, and objections shall be recorded in the Journals.

The House of Lords and the Monarch only have the Power of Veto on issues pertaining to the changing of the Constitution, a bill deemed to be adverse to the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights.

Section 8 - Powers of Parliament

Parliament shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United Kingdom; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United Kingdom;

To borrow money on the credit of the United Kingdom;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations;

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United Kingdom;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United Kingdom;

To promote the Progress of Science and Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years without the consent of two-thirds of both Houses, being in two-thirds attendance;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Armed Forces to execute the Laws of the Kingdom, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Armed Forces, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United Kingdom; and

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United Kingdom, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section 9 - Limits on Parliament

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

Taxation:for a fairer more responsible time

2009-09-22T09:53:00.003+01:00

As the issue of cuts rage through the halls of Westminster and fought out in the Conference Halls of Brighton and Bournemouth, taxation has been fairly neglected. The parties, it seem, like tax as it is. Entirely unfair and does not give responsibility over to the tax payer. There was a revolution and subsequent war in 1776 over this very principle "No Taxation without Representation". (on another, unrelated note for historical prosterity, the Americans revolted because the tea tax was putting a lot of tea merchants out of business and tea could only be supplied by the East India Company. Many of the leaders of the AMerican Revolution were tea Merchants.) We, in this country are taxed unfairly, especially in the lower tax bands, we also do not have responsibility ie democracy, to how it is spent and some people get off paying tax. I know, for at the moment I am one of them, and of course in my proposals there will be those who will be exempt from taxation. In an earlier blog, careful readers might have noticed a call for an increase in the Minimum wage from £5.58 to £7.81

My proposals for a new tax system are as follows. My justifications for such will follow after.

Band Percentage Actual
1 - 5000 2.5 0.75 - 4875
5001 - 10000 5 4750.95 - 9500
10001 - 15000 7.5 9250.93 - 13875
15001 - 20000 10 13500.90 - 18000
20001 - 25000 12.5 17500.88 - 21875
25001 - 30000 15 21250.85 - 25500
30001 - 35000 17.5 24750.83 - 28875
35001 - 40000 20 28000.80 - 32000
40001 - 45000 22.5 31000.78 - 34875
45001 - 50000 25 33750.75 - 37500
50001 - 55000 27.5 36250.73 - 39875
55001 - 60000 30 38500.70 - 42000
60001 - 65000 32.5 40500.68 - 43875
65001 - 70000 35 42250.65 - 45500
70001 - 75000 37.5 43750.63 - 46875
75001 - 80000 40 45000.60 - 48000
80001 - 85000 42.5 46000.58 - 48875
85001 - 90000 45 46750.55 - 49500
90001 - 95000 47.5 47250.53 - 49875
95001 - 150000 50 47500.50 - 75000

Anything over the £150000 threshold will be taxed at 75%. For example. Pre-tax income at £200000. £150000 taxed at 50% = 75000. Remaining £50000 taxed at 75% = 12500. Total disposable income £87500.

Exemptions -those on unemployment and/or sickness benefits. (Increase rolling out of Welfare to Work schemes) Pensioners upto £15000pa

In this proposal I have ruled out a personal allowance in the belief that it is not required, and those that are in employment on or around the current persoanl allowance band of £6475 are in part-time employment which means that invariably they are Students, working at least 2 jobs or are supllemented by a partners income. But, because the banding is gradiated, the taxation is fairer, so those that are considered on the breadline, though still paying tax are better off. In fact the vast majority of the tax bands will be better off, apart from the top earners. With the new gradiated bands of tax, there needs to be, in conjunction, an increase in social responsibility towards those tax payers - everyone. The vote given to 16 year olds - however, this also needs to be rolled out in conjunction with the teaching of politics at secondary level. Health care and education should improve, the quality of life shoul improve. Higher tax levels should create a higher quality of life.

A fairer system with a reworking of the political structure and increased political and social responsibilty will increase the quality of life of both citizens of this country and subjects of the crown.

DISCLAIMER: Not having very specific figures in front of me, in regards to the amount of people in each proposed tax band, I cannot say how much revenue this is likely to bring in. I do however think that this is a fairer system than we have at the moment

Socially Useless - are all banks like this?

2009-09-04T10:00:00.007+01:00

Lord Turner's phrase 'Socially Useless' has been used in many different interpretations, mainly because it is a perfect soundbite. It doesn't say a lot about the banks but leaves it open to different interpretations upon which the media can pounce - for example Alastair Darling's interview on the Today Progamme 04/09/09. It doesn't mean a thing - banks have never had to be socially usefull before, so why are they suddenly socially useless?

The Answer - the recession. There is a massive backlash against the banks, who are judged to be the root of the financial problem. Billions of pounds of tax-payer money pump into corrupt regimes to keep them afloat - could also be used to describe Britain's relationship with Saudi Arabia and other similar States. Many have argued that if the governments had allowed the banks to sink, then we could rewrite the financial system, so that it is not risky (but isn't that the whole point of finance and lending - to take risks?). Others back the government's plan of suring up the financial system - but leaving it pretty much intact save the increased scorn from the general public - or customers. But there is no where else to take our money, so we will grumble but do nothing about it. Why? Because the people that can do soemthing about it, do not want to. It's a fact of life - you're shat upon unless you're at the top, then you can do the shitting yourself and have someone wipe your arse as well.

But are banks 'Socially Useless'? No they are not, they're just not as socially useful as we would like them - if we had a perfect society - but alas. The banking system is integral to our society and indeed our culture. It is an employer of over 1 million people and a source of national revenue that out competes any other industry. They fund and sponsor sports, such as the Barclays Premiership and the RBS Six Nations. Arguably these are self serving pursuits, but these sponsorships provide us with entertainment and satisfaction - especially if your team is doing well. The trouble by labelling organisations and companies as 'socially useful' or not, is that it is completely and utterly subjective to opinion - what ever happened to objectivity? It died with the birth of the Blogosphere - call me a hypocrite because that is what I am. I am not a fan of banks, nor taxes - I like my money as it is, not diminshed by fees and taxes - most of which I will never, ever see again - especially taxes. With interest fees etc I know that the directors of my bank will use it to fund a jet bath filled with champagne - good luck to them. If I was in that position, I would do the smae thing -but I'm not, so I'm angry. GIVE ME MY FUCKING MONEY!!

The NHS and why we love it

2009-08-13T20:32:00.002+01:00

As I am sure you are all aware the yanks are throwing up a big fuss about FREE Healthcare! FREE Healthcare! Can you believe that they actually want to pay extortionate prices for something that most will use rarely if at all if they are lucky. I for one am lucky that the NHS is around - I have had emergency dental surgery on my top set of teeth after almost losing them in a game of Rugby - thanks to the NHS I can eat toffee without the fear of my teeth falling out. I have broken my left collar bone twice and have many scars and holes from sports injuries - and I'll be damned if I have to pay for them up front or through 'Insurance' - I'm too damned cheap and 'poor' for that. But that is the stark reality for 40 million Americans! That's two-thirds of the population of this country! A huge amount! Why would you put yourself through the stress of buying health insurance when you could have it effectively free. If I was offered Private in this country I would reject it - I much prefer the dedication and hard work put in by the doctors and nurses of our Glorious National Health Service.

In the G2 today they published a selection of #welovetheNHS tweets

@bird42: because they got me safely through two pregnancies, and the one that didn't work out.

@KingOfAnkh: if it wasn't for the NHS, my two-year old niece would have died without a liver transplant. She's now eight and doing well.

@zara_tweets: the NHS has its flaws but I dread to think how many loved one's I'd be missing without it. Makes me proud to be British.

@bitofclass: because I'd rather my healthcare decisions were taken by someone interested in public health/value than in profits

And on another tirade of rants - Daniel Hannan take your idiotic and anti-British views out of Europe - take fascists with you too. The NHS is great, staffed by even greater people - many of whom are immigrants - without which the NHS would cease to function - and then where would we be? I can tell you - in the same awful mess as the Americans now find themselves. Another note - the NHS does not carry out euthanasia, in fact we don't even have euthanasia in this country - get your facts straight Palin.

So America accept universal healthcare, embrace it, hug it and cherish it every day you have it.

Exped: Update

2009-08-12T14:02:00.004+01:00

I still haven't decided on a Theme, but I am leaning towards the Education idea. I have planned a route, it is huge and tackles all 5 continents.

Start off in London, head down into Spain and Morrocco. Go down the African West coast into South Africa and back up the East Coast into Egypt and Cairo. Into the Middle East and into Turkey, Eastern Europe into Russia. Moscow to Vladivostock. Japan to China into Pakistan, India then into the Pacfic Islands of Malaysia, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. East coast of Australia, North Island of New Zealand. Vancouver to Toronto, into the USA to El Paso and down Central America into Colombia, then down into Peru, Chile and Argentina. Heading up into Brazil to Sao Paulo and Rio - boat back to England - end in London.
This is truly a global adventure.

I have also complied a list of potential sponsors, now I just need to contact them RE: funding and proposals.

I also aim to have it filmed - so will eventually appear on the BBC or similar.

Global Expedition

2009-08-07T21:05:00.002+01:00

For a long while I have wanted to travel the world. The Government's proposals for giving graduates Gap Year money rekindled this idea. It was originally meant to be a long-term project taking up to 10 years to gather equipment and capital. However, I have been looking into Sponsorship and have come across many Sponsorship deals from many, many sources. From the Royal Geographic Society through to big corporate sponsors like PriceWaterhouseCoopers. However, they all come with a catch - a reason to do it, and 'because' does not make the grade. I have thought about this, not long on hard, and have come up with Three themes for the purpose of the trip.

1- Climate Change

2 - Education

3- Recession

At this point is should state that I intend to travel through most, if not all, countries of the world - making it a truly Global Expedition. However I need to narrow it all down.

The study of Climate Change from a social and physical perspective is important and something that effects us all. It is also a hot topic.

As a wannabe educator, Education is important to me, and how the education changes and varies from country to country and even between schools. So what could be looked at is comparing the countries but also the provision of education in each country - state, private and charity.

With the Recession it has effected us all and is a global problem, however it has been presented as the demon of the West and non-western countries are not effected. I know that this is not true. However, the recession is more of a temporal problem than the other two.

I will also take on board suggestions for other themes etc.

I also have a provisional team consisting of myself and one other person. I want it to be fairly small, but if people want to be involved on the expedition or in the organisation/administration of the expedition, you are more than welcome to help.

The Future, a Personal Reflection

2009-08-05T21:09:00.000+01:00

I am a man with a plan. Always have been, always will be. My plans, however, change and adapt based upon my immediate and perceived circumstances. These are the best laid plans as they can quickly change to different situations, the worst type of plans are those that do not exist. I have a plan! And it is a plan that has changed with me over the years. My immediate goal is to further my education by gaining a Masters in History by any means possible. I have not yet been accepted on to the course, but I would like to think that rejection is unlikely. If not, then I will defer and do it next year etc., or move onto the next goal, which is a PGCE in Secondary Education. Call me crazy, because I'm beginning to believe it myself. The next goal is to teach for a few years, to ground my feet and gather some capital resources. Because the ultimate goal of all these immediate goals is to travel the world in a Land Rover 90 or 110. The preceding years will be spent gathering equipment and money to fund this trip. It will also be spent looking into sponsorship for a charity. If I'm going to have fun, something might as well benefit from it, especially as the Land Rover is a 'gas guzzler'. (Proposed Charities will be taken into consideration). Part of this trip will also be hiking up various mountains – not Everest or similar, that is extravagant – similar to Ben Nevis. At this stage I will also take applicants for co-driver/companion. After that I plan to either emigrate, go into Politics or continue teaching. So the plan is open ended.

Under current circumstances, I am very happy being a bachelor. I do not need a long-term relationship, nor am I looking for a series of short-lived flings. I was recently hijacked on Facebook. My status read “Ust Oldfield is a cad. Sorry ladies, he's too good for just one of you.” Even though I did not write that, it has some truth to it. I am not a cad, I couldn't care less about social advancement by shagging my way to the top. Nor am I too good for just one lady. I am very happy as a bachelor (even at this young age). I enjoy my independence and feel that a relationship, unless with the ideal person, would run counter to who I am. I have my needs met through my friendships and family, even then I like to cut myself off from the world and indulge in my own thoughts. I would be quite happy to live and die a bachelor. I'm not scared of commitment, it just does not fit into my current plan, and I do not believe that it would, unless in some obscure twist of fate I find a woman who values independence as much as I do – but then it is destined to fail for being full of independent personalities, but who can tell. Some of you may be wondering 'what about Children?' 'aren't you scared of dying alone?' My answers; In the near future I will be an uncle and a God Father, if I do not have an heir, I am sure that there will be nephews, nieces and god-children to inherit my estate. If not, then there will certainly be a charity worthy and deserving of the estate. Dying alone? The honest answer is, my ideal way of dying is in a blaze of glory with bullets ripping through the air and raining down from above high, whilst I storm an enemy fortification. It is, however, reminiscent of Col. 'H' Jones and the many who died in the Forlorn Hopes. The harsh truth is, we all die alone on this earth, even if one is surrounded by many on their death bed, you die alone and go to wherever you believe in. I for one will be greeted by a stern looking Saint Peter who will shake his head in disapproval, but I'm sure he does that to all Catholics. I feel that my life will only be complete once I have executed my plan in accordance with my circumstances. In that respect I am very happy.

I once asked a charity worker what the meaning of life was, how I got to that point is a long story, she responded easily and quickly with happiness. I have to agree. I one is miserable than one hasn't lived. I do not, however, agree with hedonism. Pleasure is not happiness. Some of the happiest people are those that have no 'pleasure' but take pleasure in what they do, whether it is a good job well done, or changing someone's life for the good. Happiness is different for each individual. My happiness is through executing plans.

Graduation? to poverty

2009-08-04T16:30:00.005+01:00

I have been a graduate for a month now. I have been applying for jobs since mid may when my exams finished. I have had to sign on. I signed on, on Thursday online - it is convenient. However I am still waiting for my '2 working days' phonecall. Friends of mine have been told they have to wait upto 2 weeks before they get an incoming flow of money. Money, which I feel, I don't deserve. I am proud, and have only given in to signing on because I have been failed by this government, along with the vast majority of this years graduates and some of last years as well. I want to work, however, I have been turned away from some jobs for being too over qualified, because the companies are scared of graduates - because graduates can think! God forbid!

I am now turning to the voluntary sector for employment. I just need something to do, paid or unpaid. However I know that this government does not want to develop people, therefore I will be pressured into getting a job, once those bastards in the DWP phone me. Also, the government's current setup makes education near impossible. I have applied to pursue a Masters in History at Exeter Part-Time, so I can fund myself through it. It's going to get complicated once it starts with dole money etc. I'm not asking for much. Course costs are £2500 a year, I need a job to fund that, I'm living with my parents so living costs are next to nothing. It's not like a bachelor's degree where you pay a small fortune for what? A bit of paper, debt and no prospects. I struggle to see the benefit of doing education at the moment, but that is where my interests lie. Balls and Cooper, the dynamic duo, have buggered me up good and proper with their ill thought out plans to cope with the recession.

I do not want another gap-year, I've already had one, especially one that comes at the expense of the taxpayer. It is not constructive. The £3000 for the proposed gap-year would be better spent on getting graduates to return to education or creating part-time jobs, or a lump sum - that's what the government did to the banks. The banks that are now reporting a profit (northern rock excluded), I am disgusted. Ill thought out plans that create more problems than solved, thus needing more ill thought out plans to fix them - it's a vicious cycle of decline.
The plan for free University courses for homebased students does not apply to post-grads, in an attempt to get more people into education. I want education damn it! But I have to pay for bloody everything! I am a member of the forgotten generation, no government cares about us, and we have to pay for their mistakes, whilst also paying for future generations. I am not happy, especially as I am a Labour member. New Labour have, under Brown, done far worse than any Tory government could even possibly imagine to do. I look at the Tory shadow government, and I do not like the Front Bench, but many are more appealing than the Labour Front Bench. I believe that a Bullingdon Club, cocaine inspired destruction of this country by the Tories is far more appealing than a fumble through nothingness, trying to appeal to anyone yet failing miserably. I say this to the current Labour Dictatorial Government, if you cannot promise me a job, put me back into Education, even if it is back on the ridiculous 'Top-up' fee system. It would be more preferrable than not knowing where I stand.

Real Reforms for Education

2009-07-05T11:40:00.000+01:00

As someone who has just graduated and set to re-enter into education through post-graduate study and teaching, I felt it appropriate to address the subject of education. The government has just announced it’s ‘radical’ reforms. However, whether you agree with them or not, below are my proposals for the reform of education.

Education has the ability to empower and set one free, only if education itself is not constrained. This will involve scrapping the culture of targets, as they serve no purpose other than satisfy politicians who created the targets in the first place. However for those reading this desiring an egalitarian society will be sorely disappointed because education is naturally elitist. This is because education is based on academic intelligence and thus merit, and cannot be debased to be inclusive of all. In this capacity I am referring to Higher Education. In education, as in all walks of life, there are those that will do the bare minimum, those that will coast and those that will excel. Those that do the bare minimum will not be suited towards traditional avenues of education and may be better suited to apprenticeships and more practical avenues of life. Those that excel must not be neglected because they are naturally talented because their talent will be lost. Those that coast must be encouraged to fall into a camp. To either follow academia or other educational avenues. I am not saying that apprenticeships and other avenues are less valuable than academia, they are different. They require different styles of intelligence and will invariably arrive at the same destination just via different routes.

The government’s plans for an M.O.T for teachers is wrong. On this I am going to agree with Ian Duncan Smith and the Conservatives. There needs to be a stop to bureaucratic intervention in the profession and more powers need to be given to headteachers (teachers not business people or external managers) to weed out weak or ineffective teachers as would happen in any other sector. Same goes for the rest of the public sector. Reinvigoration equals efficiency. Ofsted remains an effective secondary monitor for the profession.

In Primary Education, there needs to be an end to testing of pupils and teachers – there is Ofsted for a reason and does not require SATs to back up findings. Primary Education is the ideal setting to teach life skills to children. Communication and relationship skills being key. Without these you will have a steady increase in, what the Conservatives like to call, the “Broken Society”. No one talks to each other anymore, communities are almost non-existent and relationships are breaking down – trend in the current high rate of divorce. At Primary age, children are young enough to be malleable and adaptable to new processes. As there is a break-down in family and society, it is becoming increasingly difficult to rely upon parents/guardians and the wider community to instil the virtues of communication, manners and good stable relationships. Of course the basics, such as literacy and numeracy, still need to be taught otherwise there will be an increase of illiterate and innumerate children. Trust needs to be handed over to the teacher whereby they can start the process of shaping autonomous thought. This process must be encouraged, built and maintained through all stages of education. The curious mind of a child needs to be satisfied and stretched.

In Secondary Education the real teaching begins, children by now know how to communicate and relate with one another. The subjects taught in secondary schools are fine. The curriculum, however, is not. Modern Languages are no longer compulsory. This is creating an isolated and xenophobic country. Instead of shutting ourselves off from the world, we should be embracing it as the world leader we claim to be. The first stage should be in our schools. Some argue that languages should be taught in Primary schools, and I agree with this argument and analysis – children are malleable and adaptable to new processes at a young age. The sciences teach outdated and crass theories. This needs to be addressed, otherwise our future scientist will be constantly told that what they have learnt is wrong – further distrust in our education system. But what is wrong with the curriculum is that students are expected to regurgitate information, with little to no level of analysis. The Secondary system is the most relevant stage to apply independent thought and analysis to subjects. Trouble children need to stop being demonised and talk to and reasoned to as people. An investigative look into the students home life might reveal what is troubling them, and perhaps the parents/guardians need to be re-educated along the line of the proposals to ensure a healthy and happy home. Of course there will be winners and losers in the education system as some are not cut out for formal education. This leads onto Further Education, the neglected institution.

Further Education (FE) is a place where, traditionally, students study A-Levels leading to Higher Education (HE). However, apprenticeships are also a part of this stage. They, along with the rest of FE, have been neglected. A drop in apprenticeship places in the recession mean that students, perhaps, not suited to formal education have to enter into it or remove themselves from education entirely. As they constitute education the financial burden of apprenticeships lie with the government rather than the employer. This would open up the access to education and provide employers with an invaluable resource. Also, as many apprentices seek independence they need to be paid at least the minimum wage, but to stop them, and other young people, from being exploited the minimum wage needs to be levelled out so anyone, regardless of age, receives the top band – currently at £5.71. As it stands I believe the International Baccalaureate (IB) to be more valuable than the current A-Level system. This is because it broadens the mind and prospect of students and it also fosters a global and international feeling which is lacking in this country. With the IB it is easier for students to study abroad and experience new and different things. FE and HE are inextricably linked due to the higher calibre of education at each institution.

HE is contentious because it is still vocational. Primary and Secondary have, for a long time, been compulsory, and FE is soon set to be compulsory. Government proposals to increase the tuition fees cap is wrong. Not only will it restrict students from poorer backgrounds from attending, but it will also increase the consumer attitude towards education. It will mean that students from richer backgrounds will out price students of merit to the prestigious universities, such as Oxbridge. It creates the wrong type of elitism, one based upon wealth, as opposed to one based upon the merit of one’s own intelligence. Besides, Education is not a business it is the future. Education creates the next captains of industry, our next leaders and our next teachers. It would be unwise to out price talent, reverting to traditional trends of only the wealthy can afford to be educated.

For Teachers, working in education is not a job it is a career and lifestyle to shape and mould the minds of the future.

For Students, education is not to accept everything that is thrown at you but to assimilate, process and choose what to believe yourself. Autonomy is key.

Rail Nationalisation

2009-07-01T10:36:00.000+01:00

National Express has lost its East Coast franchise (London to Edinburgh). The company reported a loss of £20M in the first half of 2009. They account this loss to a fall in passengers. It could also be due to a recent hike in fares and paying too much for the franchise in the first place. National Express was expected to pay £1.5Bn from 2007 to 2015, but have had to cut their losses. The admirable Lord Adonis stated:

“The government is not prepared to renegotiate rail franchises, because I'm simply not prepared to bail out companies that are unable to meet their commitments. It is simply unacceptable to reap the benefits of contracts when times are good, only to walk away from them when times become more challenging."

The government might also have grounds to end the remaining franchises of National Express’ - East Anglia and C2C – as National Express reports debts of up to £1.2Bn. This move by the government has, in effect, nationalised part of the rail network reversing a trend started in the 1980s, culminating in the 1993 Railways Act. The Rail, Maritime and Transport Union welcomed the nationalisation. "It should be a long-term solution to the chaos that privatisation has brought to the UK's most lucrative rail franchise," said RMT General Secretary Bob Crow.

Could this be the start of the re-nationalisation of the transport industry? National Express has, in effect, gone under. BA have troubles and are asking their staff to work for free. The transport industry is in dire straits and are beginning to look to the government for help. With Lord Adonis’ response, it won’t be long before complete nationalisation of the industry.

Protests for Democratic reform

2009-06-21T15:17:00.037+01:00

As the Iranian election results are contested and the 20th anniversary of Tienanmen nears, people all over the world are evaluating their democratic institutions. With the scandal of MPs expenses, there have been calls for electoral reform. How the two are linked is beyond my grasp. We, in Britain, take democracy for granted. In recent elections, turnout have not reached 50%, in fact struggle to even reach 40%! Two members of a known fascist organisation were elected to the European Parliament. Fascism undermines democracy! What needs to be done know is a total reform of how the entirety of Britain's Democratic institutions function. They are clambering for it in Iran, China, Zimbabwe etc. 2009 can be the year of hope and reform if only we work together and push through for much needed results.

The link and trust between MPs and constituencies need to be restored. The Lords needs to be more accountable, yet still retain its independence and expertise. Turnout, somehow, needs to be raised, at least, above the 50% mark.

As a member of the Electoral Reform Society, there is a lot of talk about advocating the Single Transferable Vote style of electoral reform. I, for one, believe that STV will lose the link between MP and Constituency because it relies on Multi-member contituencies. Even though it has proved successful for the Scottish Parliament it might not be good enough for the size and majesty of the Westminster Parliament. The ideal model for Westminster is the Alternate Vote, also called Instant-runoff voting. It uses a preferential system much like STV where candidates are ranked in order of preference, but there can only be one winner. That one winner will be guaranteed to have won an overall majority, having had to have got at least 50% of the cast votes. It is used widely in Student Union elections, in Australia, Fiji, Papa New Guinea and used by Labour and the Liberal Democrats in their leadership elections. It is not something that has rarely been used, and it has been proven to be effective for single member constituencies.
To renew the trust between MPs and their constituencies, the expenses system needs to be dealt with once and for all. MPs that have used the expenses system for their own gain need to be deselected. A few have already been dealt with, but not all of them. The system needs to be reworked so that it cannot be taken advantage of again. To deal with the Second Homes scandal, the system of Second Homes needs to be ended. I propose MP accommodation near or next to Westminster, so there is not a need for Second Homes or extortionate transport claims - as is the case by some North London MPs. Claims need to be transparent and published immediately, redacting personal information such as addresses and account numbers. MPs need to spend more time on the doorstep and actually talking to their constituents, whether they voted for them or not. It is very well having volunteers calling on doorsteps, it is appreciated by MPs, but to have more contact is what is needed to restore trust. MPs have, at most, 5 years to talk to their constituents, it would not be very taxing at all.

The issue of the Lords is hotly debated. I do not want it to be wholly appointed or wholly elected. If it remains wholly appointed then it plays into Party politics. If it is wholly elected then the Members would neglect their duties when it came to an election. There is also a lot tradition linked to the Lords and many would hate to see it disappear. I propose that half of the Lords is elected, using STV and linked to the counties, much like the American Senate. However terms need to be longer than that of the American Senate which is 6 year staggered terms. There are 86 counties on mainland Britain. 92 including Northern Ireland. At most, 184 elected Lords. The Law Lords, would have to remain appointed. Religious Lords, unless extended to all the faiths, must be abolished as, otherwise, they serve no purpose except to represent, what is now, a minority. The remaining positions must be reserved for the 'people's peers' and for former leaders of Government and Parliament, as tradition dictates.

With regards to increasing turnout, my only suggestion is to promote compulsory voting. Some might argue that voting is a right, and you have a right not to vote. However, you also have a duty to vote! If you do not exercise your right to vote, then you should not complain. But complaining is part of the democratic process as it means that people are unhappy with something. By making voting compulsory, it means that people automatically exercise their rights. But with this comes the rise of protest voting, inevitably towards the smaller parties like the British National Party. To combat this, an education campaign needs to be unfurled, not just in schools, but across all sections of society. Teach them about ideology and make the manifestos more widely accessible.

When people are calling for reform, it is time for reform. When people are disengaged with the system, it is time for reform.

On Marriage and the Family

2009-06-15T12:06:00.000+01:00

The Spring 2009 edition of the Fabian Review is concerned with Marriage and the Family, and how the Left should tackle these issues. Both of these, as a semi-devoted Catholic, are important to me. In my opinion, marriage is a religious sacrament and should not be entered into lightly. Family, as a member of the left, can exist without marriage, such as the wider community of ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’. This wider community is an extension of the family as family does not have to explicitly mean blood or marriage relations. It can exist through close affiliations, and can exist with a ‘traditional’ family-like structure. Those on the Right tend to hold the belief that the family can only exist through marriage, and have demonised single-parent families ever since.

The foundations of a ‘traditional’ family are the children, without these it might as well be a community. Research has pointed out that Children thrive in a stable home-base, whether the parents are married, cohabiting or single is regardless. As long as the home-base is stable then the children will be able to succeed. If the child is brought up in a high-conflict zone then they will suffer, as will the adults. If the parent is constantly in short-term relationships then the child will suffer. The parent(s) of the child(ren) need to either be long-term single or in a long-term relationship regardless of marriage. The child will also thrive with a good quality of relationships and low levels of conflict. The relationships being Partner to Partner; Parent to Child; and Partner to Child. Divorce and relationship break-up create instability for the child, and if the relationships between the parties were good, then the child might possibly suffer, unless contact is maintained between child and adults. However, research has suggested, that a divorce/break-up in a high-conflict relationship is the best thing for the child and the adults. For single-parent families it is, in the best case scenario, important that co-parenting happens, they might not be together but it is a shared duty and they owe it to themselves and their child(ren) to do so.

The 2008 Centre for Social Justice report states that ‘only changes that will reinforce marriage should be adopted...marriage produces better outcomes for both adults and children.’ However marriage signals stability, it does not create it. The positive effects of marriage are due to the unique characteristics of individuals and can found in cohabitation without the need for marriage. Better communication creates better relationships, and is a mantra for life. The CSJ report influenced Tory policy on marriage, and now the Tories are offering tax-breaks for married couples. However, getting married for tax reasons is not going to create stability needed by children. At best it will waste tax-payers money for rewarding marriages that would have happened anyway. At worst, it will encourage marriage for the wrong reasons.

There are, in 2008, 1.8 million single parents in the country. 22% of children live in poverty, most of these the children of single parents. A child of a single parent is three-times less likely to be in poverty if the parent works part-time. The child is five-times less likely to live in poverty if the parent works full-time. The benefit system, therefore, needs to be re-worked to encourage welfare to work. Poverty is known to destabilise relationships, and without the reform needed in the welfare system, it will be an unending cycle of poverty and broken relationships. To encourage this reform, parenting needs to be open to new ideas and opened up to a wider social support network. These can include new parent groups, the wider family (60% of children receive childcare through grandparents), and neighbourhoods – the ‘extended family’.

Marriage is not the be all and end all, however to me, it is a desirable outcome. The child(ren) of cohabiting couples or single-parents can do as well as children raised by a married couple. The only difference being is that the families they come from are demonised because they do not conform to the ‘traditional’ family structure of two parents and two children.

Afghanstan

2009-06-13T11:37:00.000+01:00

The war in Afghanistan can be won! What was initially part of the ‘War on Terror’, and the removal of a regime openly harbouring and training terrorists that had recently attacked the USA, has evolved. With the installation of liberal democracy, it not only removes the threat to the sovereignty of states, such as the US and the UK, but also creates a free and fair society so that Afghanistan can be progressive rather than regressive.

Afghanistan is a long-term commitment just like Northern Ireland was and is, and what Iraq should have been. However, the threat of the Taleban cannot be properly dealt with until its bases inside Pakistan have been properly dealt with. The Taleban have become more audacious as they hide behind Pakistan for protection, who in turn, hides behind the West for protection. This game of cat and mouse must stop, and the operating procedures of Pakistan confronted.

I know that many of you will disagree with my argument and will want to change Britain’s attitude towards the international arena. But to maintain the belief that groups or individuals can change foreign policy is deluded. Politicians have very little influence over foreign policy. If you want to change it, join the FCO, MoD or various arms companies such as BAE.

European Elections Results.

2009-06-08T16:27:00.005+01:00

My Party has recorded it's worst polling since the early 1920s. My country has elected 2 fascists to an institution I uphold in the highest regards. What needs to happen now is a very quick turn-around to ensure that last night was a once off episode and can be written off as a bad mistake, rather than a stain on the permanent record.

It is already being speculated by the media that Gordon Brown, our Glorious Leader, will be ousted from the office of Prime Minister by the Parliamentary Party by the end of the week. They are also speculating that Alan Johnson, the current Health/Home secretary will replace him. If so, this will be a sad case of affairs.
I'm not going to stand up for Gordon, he's got himself into the mess by being greedy with power and can, therefore, get himself out of it by resigning from office gracefully. The next matter is who is to succeed him. I have fears that the party I joined is much like the party I left, the Conservatives, in that they will be keen to be rid of a leader who loses an election. Gordon has lost two and the vultures are calling for his head. The next leader/PM will have to be a care-taker, because no doubt he/she will lose the job after the next general election. Alan Johnson should aim to be the next leader after the catastrophic defeat at the next General Election in order to breathe new life into party and reclaim support in the country. My candidate for the next PM/Leader once Gordon has been disposed is a member of the Old Guard, perhaps Jack Straw. Someone that is safe and will stop the Labour Party from drifting into obscurity much life the Liberal Party.

In regards to the fascist in Parliament, it is a cause for mourning because Democracy has embraced the final death throes. As a member of a Political Party and the Electoral Reform Society, Democracy is extremely important to me, even though I loathe it at times, it has it's merits and should be protected at all costs. The election of the BNP to the European Parliament has undermined Democracy because they, like many fascist groups including the Nazi Party, wish to get rid of democracy. The BNP will join other fascists in Europe including parties that David Cameron and the Conservatives wish to join - it would be a grave mistake if they did and David Cameron should listen to the advice offered by Germany's Angela Merkel. I accept that Labour came 3rd yesterday because of the backlash against the current government over the handling of expenses and the economy. However I struggle to believe that the protest vote would go to the BNP - over 900,000 voted for them!! Saying that almost 70% of the electorate failed to vote. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke was right then, and he's still right now. The people that did not vote are just as to blame as those that voted for the BNP and, in my view, more detestable! If one was dissatisfied with the running of Westminster and the country, or fed up with 'slack' immigration laws then by all means make a protest vote - say for UKIP - but do not make such a stupid error of judgment and vote for overt racists and fascists.

To combat such stupidity and apathy, politics needs to be taught at school and taught in a meaningful way, not like this ridiculous citizenship that they have nowadays. Teach them how government works, teach them about ideology and teach them about their right and duty to take part in the democratic process. If that fails, make voting compulsory like they do in Australia and other countries. Then maybe, perhaps, Britain will have a credible government and Parliament.

Psychological Impact on Formulation of Britain's Foreign and Defence Policy

2009-05-08T15:04:00.001+01:00

Britain, since the collapse of its Empire and subsequent decolonisation has struggled to find a replacement role. This loss of empire has produced ideas of grandeur for the British establishment and the subsequent relations with other states, for example the Falklands War and Humanitarian Intervention. They are examples of Britain’s supposed Imperial duty. The role that Britain plays on the UN Security Council is important as it is linked to the retaining of a nuclear deterrent and Britain’s use of sanctions. But, because Britain is still searching for a role in the post-imperial world, Britain has come to rely on America for influence with the Special Relationship. In recent times, this special relationship has led Britain into two wars – Iraq and Afghanistan. However, with Blair’s premiership it has meant an ethical dimension to Foreign Policy with an introduction of a quasi-liberal doctrine of International relations in conjunction within the traditional Realist approach. He has brought in the International Criminal Court, to try individuals charged with Human Rights abuses, which ties in with Blair’s policy of Humanitarian Intervention. With Blair’s Premiership and emphasis on the ethical dimension to Foreign Policy would suggest that Britain has a new world role in humanitarian intervention. However, with a closer move to America under the Presidencies of Clinton and Bush, it would suggest that the Special Relationship takes precedence, and that Britain is not looking to take a world power role, but is merely trying to secure a beneficial and profitable position with the US.

When the British Empire began its dissolution after the Second World War, the ideas and model of empire building was retained in the Foreign Office, as can be seen in the handling of the decolonisation process, for example the crushing of the Mau Mau Uprising during the 1950s, or the Suez Crisis. Another good example is the handling of decolonisation in Southern Africa. Despite handing over power to the majority African governments, Britain still had amazing influence with the governments, such as Kaunda of Zambia. Nationalist leader held to the influence of Britain, especially when the Zambia had problems with Southern Rhodesian independence. Zambia, threatened by a resurgent Southern Rhodesia asked Britain for military aid, Britain refused because Southern Rhodesia was Britain’s problem alone, and told the Zambian government to comply with Southern Rhodesian demands, even when it meant the bombing, by Southern Rhodesia, of Zambian territory. The role that Britain has played as an empire and during decolonisation has created a false image of grandeur in Britain. Despite not having an empire, Britain feels it still has to police the world and punch well above its weight. This image has led to conflict on the world stage; with Argentina over the territorial claims to the Falkland Islands, and Britain’s believed imperial duty in its role in Humanitarian Intervention in Kosovo. The Falklands War was started by the invasion of Argentinean forces of the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands in 1982. The Argentineans had put claim to the Islands since the 1830s. The invasion was, according to most sources, a surprise to the British, who were caught off guard. This was a serious blow to the image of Britain, who was still recovering from the blow by the Suez Crisis in 1956.Britain needed to win and succeed in the counter invasion. ‘The success of the Falklands Campaign – in contrast to the failure of Suez – played a crucial part in the re-establishment of Britain’s self-confidence.’It reintroduced faith in the British image of empire and grandeur. The Falklands proved that Britain still had the military might to match another country, not necessarily in terms of man power, but in terms of the quality of man power. Britain was a force to be reckoned with. However this idea and image of military supremacy and grandeur did not stop with the going of Thatcher, it was continued by, the famous Thatcherite, Tony Blair in his quest to remodel the aims and direction of British Foreign Policy. The image of military supremacy and grandeur was not the traditional aspect of imperialism but post-imperial Humanitarian Intervention. Humanitarian Intervention is a part of the Ethical Dimension to Foreign Policy, which shall be discussed later, for example Britain as part of a NATO Reaction Force went into Kosovo on the basis of Humanitarian Intervention to stop the killing of Albanian Serbs. The war itself was successful; however, the action can be viewed as an aspect of imperial duty, acting as the world’s policeman, even though the mantle should have been passed to another state, such as America. The loss of empire has had a profound effect on the formulation of British Foreign Policy. The actual power and grandeur has gone, but the image remains and it is on that deluded image that Britain has entered into conflict with Argentina over the Falklands and Serbia over Kosovo on the pretext of Humanitarian Intervention.

Linked with the idea of grandeur is Britain’s justification for sitting as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. The implications of this mean retaining a Nuclear Deterrent and imposing economic sanctions. Both, at times, are not in the permanent interests of Britain and cause untold damage to the national economy. Britain maintains the Trident Nuclear Deterrent as a way to justify sitting on the UN Security Council. The replacement of the Trident Missile Defence system will cost £20 billion; each missile costs £16.8 million. It is a huge cost to the British tax payer and has no real benefit to the security of the country other than as a status symbol. The 1998 Strategic Defence Review stated:

‘We are committed to working towards a safer world in which there is no requirement for nuclear weapons and continue to play a full role in international efforts to strengthen arms control and prevent the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. However, the continuing risk from the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the certainty that a number of other countries will retain substantial nuclear arsenals, mean that our minimum nuclear deterrent capability, currently represented by Trident, is likely to remain a necessary element of our security.’

This governmental line has come under scrutiny. General Lord Ramsbotham stated, at the review of Trident, that ‘our independent deterrent has become virtually irrelevant except in the context of domestic politics’, it is there to suit the whims of politicians on International standing and ‘it is a Cold War weapon. It is not a weapon for the situation we are in now’ and proposed that the money saved on not replacing the Trident Defence System go towards funding the Armed Forces directly. Besides, the independent nuclear deterrent is not independent, it is solely dependent on the US, who own the rights to the missiles in the first place, and ‘it’s absolutely unthinkable that we should consider or even threaten using it without having the clearance of the United States.’Britain is tied up to the US, through the Special Relationship, Nuclear Deterrent among others. Another critic of government policy states:

‘The contribution of Britain’s nuclear deterrent to the common defence is not precisely defined; but the deterrent is seen as a symbol of its security commitment and as an essential factor in ensuring its continued influence within the Alliance, not to mention the final guarantee of its national sovereignty.’

But, seeing as the book was written in 1988, the ‘final guarantee of national sovereignty’ does not hold in today’s climate. The Nuclear Deterrent is a status symbol that allows Britain to justify its continued existence on the UN Security Council.

The Nuclear Deterrent justifies Britain’s seat on the UN Security Council but, due to the self-importance that Britain imposes on itself, Britain utilises the sanction tool of the UN to its maximum capacity. However, Economic Sanctions, no matter how they are used, are damaging to all countries involved and, at the end of the day, do not work. The mission statement of the FCO on the use of sanctions is thus: ‘The UK is committed to the effective use of sanctions and believes that such measures can play an instrumental role in encouraging states to effect positive change on the ground.’ However, the effective use of sanctions involves an effective threat of force which, if actually enacted, leads to war, so much for promoting peace and democracy around the world. A method used by Britain to enact and enable sanctions is through the UN, in which ‘the UK believes there is clear additional benefit in the pressure which can be brought to bear on countries through UN collective measures...The UK therefore pursues its sanctions policy primarily through multilateral for is such as the UN, including through its permanent membership of the Security Council’. In other words, Britain will use the UN in the enabling of sanctions if it suits Britain, otherwise it will go its own way and enable them itself. However the cost of implementing sanctions on the host country, as well as Britain is huge. With Iraq for example, a think tank has calculated that in the period 1991 – 2010, the cost of the two Gulf Wars and the counter-insurgency campaign has cost the region $12 Trillion. Through the use of sanctions, Britain is creating Humanitarian Crises. It will use sanctions, predominantly, so that Britain remains in favour with the UN, so that it can appear to be using its influence to do ‘good’ in the world, even if it comes at a cost – financial and human.

The loss of empire and the continued existence on the UN Security Council are both linked to the Special Relationship between Britain and the US. The Special Relationship, depending on Premier and President, has on the whole been a benefit to Britain. However, recently, the relationship has taken Britain into two wars, with the strong possibility of more in the future. The two/three most famous relationships have been; Thatcher and Reagan; Blair and Clinton; Blair and Bush. The first two listed have been beneficial to Britain, in that Britain’s influence and prestige on the world stage has increased. However, the third listed relationship has brought Britain into two wars – Iraq and Afghanistan, part of the ‘War on Terror’ – and has made Britain a target for international terrorism.

Iraq as part of the ‘War on Terror’ has been justified in terms of ethical foreign policy, which shall be discussed later. The ‘War on Terror’, however, has brought controversy to the Blair Premiership. Blair went along with the ‘War’ to assert claim to a global leadership and to justify continued existence on the UN Security Council. The ‘War’ can be linked back to the image of grandeur and the justifications for sitting on the UN Security Council. According to the critic, Monbiot, by siding with America, Britain is avoiding its moral duty for humanitarian intervention by avoiding conflict with America, who is the new enemy. However ‘we have deluded ourselves for too long with the false choice between the US and Europe.’ ‘The stronger we are in Europe, the stronger our American relationship.’ What Britain is looking for in the Special Relationship is to benefit Britain by buying the political, military and cultural bridge between America and Europe.

‘Britain’s influence in Washington...depends on our position within Europe: on how far we speak as part of a European consensus, representing a significant force within the global economy, and within global institutions, as well as some significant shared military capability.’

The relationship between the US and Britain revolves around a careful balance between Atlanticism and European Integration. If Britain were to fall out with one, then it would most likely fall out with the other as well. Blair’s Premiership has been dominated with the idea of multilateralism, rather than the traditional unilateralism, so that Britain has a leading role in Europe, in solving global problems. However, the Special Relationship can also be viewed, not as an alternative world power role, but as Britain securing a beneficial and profitable position with the US. British opinion is not going to influence US action, but US action can influence British Opinion and the actions Britain takes in the European Union.

When Blair reached his Premiership in 1997, his Foreign Secretary announced an ‘Ethical Dimension’ to Foreign Policy, much to the dismay of the establishment in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This Ethical Dimension to Foreign Policy is Blair’s way of rejecting the Realist view of International Relations in an attempt to bring in a Liberal doctrine. The most pronounced form of this Ethical Dimension manifests itself in Britain’s and Blair’s commitment to Humanitarian Intervention. With the spread of globalisation ideology, actions in a state are not contained in that state, they transcend national boundaries. In regards to Iraq, the ‘Iraqi regime was “revealed as the world’s worst regime”...that included systematic rape and torture...and a willingness, to use chemical weapons on its own people.’ Those were good grounds to enter into a war in the first place, but there are also many counter arguments. First, there is the argument that Kurds are a non-people, in that they do not belong in Iraq or Turkey and the persecution is accepted because the minority is small enough to be ignored. The second argument is that the Gulf War should have been finished in 1991 and that the second Gulf War was not on the grounds of humanitarian intervention but to get rid of a dictator who had expended his usefulness in the grand scheme of stability in the region, against Iran. Another example of Humanitarian Intervention is Kosovo in 1999. NATO went into Kosovo to protect Albanian Kosovans from Serbian forces, which were known for their brutality and priority for Ethnic Cleansing in Bosnia. Even though Humanitarian Intervention was a cause for concern, there were also other, selfish, motives for intervention in Kosovo. The first one being the worry of a refugee crisis, which would seek refuge in Britain and France. It was estimated that it would create over 250,000 refugees. The second reason being that Western governments wanted to expand into Eastern Europe but with Milosevic being a strong nationalistic communist wanting to rebuild without Western intervention blocked this. Mark Curtis has criticised this example of Humanitarian Intervention as ‘absurd’.The motives for going in to Kosovo are a mixture of humanitarian and selfish, with the selfish being dominant. But one thing that the Blair Premiership has established in conjunction with the principle of Humanitarian Intervention is the International Criminal Court, which was in the process of prosecuting Slobodan Milosevic, and took a lot of flak from the Americans because of establishing the Court. Another aspect of Blair’s Ethical Dimension to Foreign Policy is in his address to Congress July 2003. ‘The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defence and our last line of attack.’ Blair is advocating the Liberal Doctrine of International Relations, in his attempt to justify the Invasion of Iraq, because Liberal democratic states do not attack each other, but work together for the benefit of all mankind.

To conclude, the impact of a continued belief in Britain’s world power role has on foreign and security policy is thus: an image of grandeur brought about by the loss of Empire and the deluded belief in continued imperial duty. Continual justification for the continued existence on the UN Security Council, which includes the imposition of sanctions and the maintaining of a Nuclear Deterrent. With the loss of the Empire comes a closer bond in the Special Relationship with the US, in that it has blown Britain’s relative importance outwards, believing to be a partner with America in America’s relations with Europe creating a bridge between the two. However the relationship has brought Britain into two, probably, unsustainable wars with the possibility of more. However, with the advent of Tony Blair, there has been a slight shift in Foreign Policy with the Ethical Dimension, acting in the interest of a common humanity with the principle of Humanitarian Intervention, the establishment of the International Criminal Court and bringing in the liberal doctrine of International Relations into British Foreign Policy.

Britain and Sanctions

2009-05-06T13:13:00.001+01:00

Economic sanctions are used by Britain in four different, sometimes overlapping, capacities. The first, and least complicated, is the everyday sanction. It manifests itself as arms embargoes and restrictions on export goods. The second type of sanction is the retaliatory sanction, used as a measure to cripple a state who has either attacked Britain or is challenging Britain’s overseas interests. The third type, are sanctions used to bring down or change governments due to international pressure or the interests of Britain. The fourth type is as a condition of war, put in place after a war has happened to prevent a further outbreak of conflict.

The mission statement of the FCO on the use of sanctions is thus: ‘The UK is committed to the effective use of sanctions and believes that such measures can play an instrumental role in encouraging states to effect positive change on the ground.’ However, the effective use of sanctions involves an effective threat of force which, if actually enacted, leads to war, so much for promoting peace and democracy around the world. A method used by Britain to enact and enable sanctions is through the UN, in which ‘the UK believes there is clear additional benefit in the pressure which can be brought to bear on countries through UN collective measures...The UK therefore pursues its sanctions policy primarily through multilateral for is such as the UN, including through its permanent membership of the Security Council’. In other words, Britain will use the UN in the enabling of sanctions if it suits Britain, otherwise it will go its own way and enable them itself.

The everyday sanctions that Britain enforces are currently in operation against 47 states and numerous terrorist organisations. The sanctions are put in place, largely, to protect the overseas interests of the United Kingdom. There is an arms embargo in place in China to stop the export to China of ‘any equipment which might be used for internal repression’. There are sanctions in place over Iran to provide provision for ‘nuclear and ballistic missile programmes – related embargo; travel notification requirements; assets freeze; study restrictions’. With India and Pakistan, the British State is refusing the sale of parts for nuclear weapons and power stations, to prohibit the violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, of which they are not party to but the rest of the world is, by the two states. There is a restriction on export licences for ‘defence- related equipment and technology’ on Taiwan in order to maintain regional stability. There are six states blacklisted due to intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo, therefore the British State will not grant export licences for new military equipment to the states, which include Angola, Burundi, Namibia, Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe. There are a lot of African states on the list of countries with sanctions put on them; this is to prohibit the execution of events that would ultimately lead to a humanitarian crisis.

There are provisions put in place to freeze the assets of known and suspected terrorist groups across the globe, this is not strictly a UK led initiative as a lot of the measures come from the UN and its Security Council. There are even sanctions in place on states that are suspected of harbouring terrorists, such as the Lebanon and Syria. The UN’s role in these everyday sanctions is fairly obvious as the majority of the sanctions are UN led initiatives and the UN has yet to announce its disapproval of sanctions that it has not officially condoned. The use of everyday sanctions is largely to protect overseas interests or to maintain regional stability, thus protecting overseas interests.

The everyday sanctions are somewhat an extension of retaliatory sanctions. For example, there is currently an arms embargo in place against Argentina which stipulates that ‘licences are only granted for exports that would not, at the time of application or in the foreseeable future, put at risk the security of UK Overseas Territories in the South Atlantic or UK forces operating there.’ Argentina, once a member of the Sterling Area, invaded the British Overseas Territories of South Georgia and Falklands on the 2nd April 1982 over a territory dispute. Leading up to and during the conflict, many trade agreements were broken or overlooked. Leading up to the conflict the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (CoCom) failed to foresee a conflict between Argentina and the United Kingdom, despite previous heated diplomatic confrontations, when ‘approving weapons exports to Argentina’. The CoCom was dissolved in 1994 due to its failure with the Falklands War and other matters of importance to the member states. In 1998 the Government of the United Kingdom put in place the sanctions, despite the fact that Argentina had been a stable democratic country for eleven years. Today Argentina still has designs on the Falkland Islands, to which they are called Las Malvinas, however, to date, it does not desire to pursue its ambitions through force, so why the sanctions?

All states are fearful of one another and if it can legitimately enforce sanctions against another, then it restricts the threat posed by that state. Another example of this principle was in the aftermath of the Suez Crisis. During the crisis, the UK used its veto in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) twice to prevent resolutions passed against the invasion of Egypt. After the crisis, Britain and France put in place rather secretive measures that acted in the same way as sanctions, involving an end to European exports to Egypt and the incorporation of a UN Emergency Force, similar to Peacekeepers, to monitor the activities of the Egyptians. These measures ultimately aided in the defeat of Egypt at the hands of Israel in the Six Day War.

The retaliatory sanctions used by Britain are to prohibit the capabilities of other states to a) counter-attack and b) defend their own borders, as is shown in the examples of Argentina after the Falklands War and Egypt after the Suez Crisis.

If Britain goes through the UN and the UNSC to get what it wants, then the UN and the international community also use Britain to further the interests of certain states. In other words, Britain uses Sanctions to change the governments of states under its jurisdiction due to international pressure. The two examples that will be given are Southern Rhodesia in the 1960s and 1970s and South Africa in the 1980s.

Southern Rhodesia proclaimed a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) on the 11th November 1965 against the wishes of the British Government and to the outrage of International opinion. Almost immediately after UDI was declared sanctions were imposed by Britain to try and bring down the Smith Government. Oil sanctions were imposed, though not popular, and were only ‘effective’ due to American support in exchange for Britain’s support with America’s policy on Vietnam. ‘America had no interest in or a desire to do anything about Rhodesia. The British were unconcerned about Vietnam. But their leaders were dragging their countries into both these conflicts for their own selfish interests’. The sanctions were unpopular throughout Southern and Central Africa, because by cutting off Southern Rhodesia, it meant cutting off poorer countries to its north as well. Wilson, through the UNSC, got a UN Resolution preventing oil from getting to Southern Rhodesia through the port of Beira. ‘South Africa simply reiterated that in principle they were opposed to boycotts and sanctions, and for good measure pointed out that they had always provided the main ports of access to a number of land-locked countries, notably Lesotho, Botswana, Swaziland and Zambia, in addition to Rhodesia’. The sanctions on Southern Rhodesia were beginning to fail as soon as they started, largely because of the ingenuity of the Rhodesians in the face of adversity. A Tobacco Corporation was set up to serve as a residual buyer and buy surplus crop, so that the tobacco industry, the largest industry, would not go under. Wheat production was revolutionised through large-scale irrigation and within two years, had surplus for export. Ethanol, through sugar production, was incorporated into petrol, providing an alternative fuel source, to what had been cut off by the British. Ian Smith ‘challenged the UN on the point that if, as Britain maintained, Rhodesia was not an independent state, but a part of Britain, how then could Britain impose sanctions on itself? And conversely, if the UN imposed sanctions against Rhodesia, then we must be an independent state and thus have the right of a hearing at the UN Security Council’. The route taken by Wilson and his government concerning Southern Rhodesia was ill thought out and hasty, pre-empting attacks and sanctions from other states. Ultimately, the sanctions were there to appease the Afro-Asian bloc in the Commonwealth, as well as left-wing elements in his own party. ‘The [Commonwealth] group became swallowed up in the Afro-Asian group, and, in the tide of anti-colonialism, its members took part in lambasting Britain’. Britain, it would appear, became caught in a Catch 22 situation, and eventually the ‘South Africans embarked on a deliberate policy of trade diversification, which led Britain losing many of the trade benefits which it had previously enjoyed with South Africa – another price Britain had to pay for Wilson’s policy of appeasement’.The UN was critical of the ineffectiveness of the economic sanctions as they did nothing to change the government of Southern Rhodesia. The use of sanctions was to prevent a UN Peacekeeping force from entering Southern Rhodesia in what has been referred to as a ‘red army in blue berets’, the sanctions satisfied no-one but at least it kept the situation under Britain’s control.

South Africa is another matter all together, there had been calls for economic sanctions put in place against the apartheid regime since the early 1960s but it had not been taken seriously until the late 1980s when the UK and the US led the way in imposing sanctions against the regime. So why the long delay, and did these work or have the same effect as Southern Rhodesia? First, the reason why it took so long was because there was opposition from the main trading partners of South Africa in imposing sanctions, namely Britain. Second, they were more successful in bringing a change of regime than had been previously witnessed in Southern Rhodesia. This was because, the sanctions imposed on South Africa were not just economic, but they were cultural as well, besides public opinion in Western countries were opposed to the apartheid regime and ended up boycotting businesses that had ties with the regime. Eventually the regime was brought down through a concerted effort from eminent black activists in South Africa and an almost complete collapse of it economy because of the withdrawal of foreign investment.

Sanctions against a country have to be much more than just economic to force a change in the government, otherwise it merely contains the country, and can lead to it prospering in some cases, or hurting everybody, but in either case the poorest of society suffer the most.

Sanctions are sometimes imposed as a condition of war, as was the case with Iraq after the first Gulf War. Sanctions as a condition of war unite the other three types of sanctions, because it is a form of the everyday sanction with arms embargoes. It is retaliatory, in that it is in place as soon as war breaks out, and it is designed to bring about a change in government. Immediately following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, economic sanctions were imposed by the UNSC along with the build up of arms by the British and Americans. Following a successful air and ground war, the Iraqi Republican Guard capitulated and the war was ‘won’, sanctions were imposed to cripple the Iraqi economy so that it could not pursue a similar act in the future. The contents of the sanctions included a banning of all exports from Iraq, and the freezing of overseas assets. ‘In the terms of the resolution, “supplies intended strictly for medical purposes, and, in humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs” and “payments exclusively for strictly medical or humanitarian purposes and, in humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs” were to be permitted. However, as Iraq imported most of its food and medicines...the sanctions effectively applied to these items too’.The remainder of the sanctions involved the restrictions of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) weapons, as well as a limiter on the range of ballistic missiles. These were put in place because Iraq’s NBC capabilities had been used to their full effectiveness during the Iran-Iraq war and a missile that could reach Israel and Saudi Arabia threatened Western interests in the region. After the US led coalition invasion of Iraq in 2003, the original sanctions were dropped and new ones were put in their place in order to prevent whatever sprung up in the wake of Saddam’s downfall would not perpetrate the same crimes as the Ba’ath regime had done. The UNSC resolution 1483 was adopted at the end of May 2003 which included a ‘lift of all trade and financial sanctions against Iraq except for the arms embargo; freeze of all Government of Iraq funds and all funds belonging to Saddam Hussein, senior members of his regime and their immediate family members (as designated by the UN Sanctions Committee), and requirement that such funds be transferred to the Development Fund for Iraq’.Sanctions following Blair’s ethical dimension to Foreign Policy seem to have appeared in this resolution. Iraq may continue to operate normally, as a normal state would under normal circumstances, but have in place certain arrangements to prohibit the building of a national defence force, thus relying on coalition forces. However, the ethical dimension appears in the freezing of assets section, in which all frozen assets will be ‘transferred to the Development Fund for Iraq’ so that the re-building of Iraq does not come from Britain, who already has a strained budget. However, through a combined effort from Saddam Hussein, the First Gulf War and subsequent sanctions, the death toll of innocents reached higher than was expected for non-intervention, ‘including 500,000 deaths above the anticipated rate among Iraqi children under five years of age between 1991 and 1998’.

Sanctions as a condition of war are therefore the culmination of all the types of sanction mentioned, but with, what could be called, detrimental effects on the poorer sections of society especially if they are also members of persecuted ethnicities.

To conclude, the British policy towards economic sanctions has been one based upon the threat of force; ‘economic sanctions do not work unless they are backed up by force, and economic sanctions backed up by force normally lead to war’.The four types of sanction used; the everyday; the retaliatory; the change of government; and the condition of war are not effective as they are intended to be. The everyday sanction acts as a containment method rather than anything productive. The retaliatory sanction is often ill thought out and hurried, therefore being hugely unpopular and costly in its approach. Sanctions used to change a government do not do that, sanctions imposed on a state will force the state to become imaginative in finding substitutes and internal pressure i.e. terrorist attacks, are more likely to be the cause of change than outside sanctions, as was the case in both Southern Rhodesia and South Africa. Sanctions as a condition of war again act as a container, not really imposing direct change on the ground. If the aim of the British policy on economic sanctions is: ‘the UK is committed to the effective use of sanctions and believes that such measures can play an instrumental role in encouraging states to effect positive change on the ground’ it has failed. However, if it were to reword its policy, so that sanctions would be used as a containment method, then surely it has succeeded.

State Obsoletism and Globalisation

2009-05-05T11:38:00.001+01:00

Globalisation does not make the state obsolete as the state provides services that can only be provided effectively by the state. However globalisation does remove some sovereignty from the state as international organisations and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) require intervention in general areas of state affairs or in specific specialised areas that they specialise in. Globalisation is the free movement of ideas, populations, capital, goods and services without the restriction of borders. It is mainly economic but it is also increasingly cultural, religious and social.

As stated before globalisation is the free movement of ideas, populations, capital, goods and services without the restriction of borders. It is a result of technological change and the expansionist nature of capitalism. It is also a result of a promotion of certain normalities and regulations by certain state actors and NGOs. Globalisation, in short, is a form of imperialism. New forms of communication, such as the Internet, and improved transport networks, such as aeroplanes, have helped and encouraged globalisation to flourish. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 utilised these advancements in technology for the terrorists to carry out their objectives. Capitalism, and its expansionist tendencies, has economically globalised the world, save a few secluded states, and created opportunities for a free movement of capital, goods and services. Capitalism is a normality and regulation that has been exported by the rich countries of the West and the empires of the old European powers. The other normalities and regulations that have been exported in recent years has been the idea of democracy. Democracy, as an idea, has been ‘forced’ upon states either through incentives, usually economic and political, or through force. The European Union (EU) is a good example of changing states’ former way of rule to that of democratic by enforcing rules that member and potential member states have to conform to. The second Gulf War is a prime example of democracy being exported through the use of force. The President of the United States of America justified force by using the democratisation of Iraq as a justification for war. This export of normalities and regulations by international actors is seen as a form of imperialism as the exporting actor is asserting their will over other actors to gain influence and, more often than not, access to markets.

Globalisation has often been claimed to be a product of rising transnational political and social issues. Environmental problems, marginalised populations, international conflicts and global poverty have all added to the process of globalisation. Green peace, Friends of the Earth and the WWF are all NGOs that operate in the interests of the environment across many countries. These environmental lobbyists are truly global in their efforts, collecting membership across many different nation states and tackling global problems globally. The phenomenon known, as global terror is a response to globalisation as the combatants are marginalised peoples against the global forces of Western powers. Terrorist networks such as Al-Qaeda are global, operating in most nation states, against the ‘decadence’ of the west. Global terrorists are also a product of globalisation utilising the technology of capitalism and globalisation for their ends. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 saw the technology of powered flight in the form of the aeroplane used. The terrorists also used the Internet to communicate with each other. The also used television broadcasts to unveil their plans. Organisations such as Amnesty International, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the United Nations (UN) are frequently involved in finding solutions to conflicts be they domestic or international. The UN was established to prevent global conflict on the scale of the Second World War. Since then it has been used by the major powers to prevent conflict on a similar scale. Even though it has, the majority of the time, failed to prevent conflict it has been successful in the solutions to the problems that arise after the conflicts. NATO was involved in Kosovo to prevent further atrocities to the Albanian population. It was successful in preventing further atrocities and establishing peace talks between the Serbs and the Albanian population along with the establishment of an administrative government under international agreement. Amnesty International is an NGO that is dedicated to alerting the global population to conflicts and atrocities that have arisen since the 1960s. It also campaigns globally on the issue of human rights. Global poverty seems to be a growing concern amongst governments and their populations. The G8 countries seem to be addressing to problem as does the UN and the EU, however the move towards making ‘poverty history’ is slow due to the protected markets of the G8 nations and the EU. Poverty is a global problem with very limited global solutions to the problem.

It has been claimed that globalisation removes the sovereignty from the state and thus removes the state itself. To decide whether globalisation makes the state obsolete or not, the removal of sovereignty needs to be discussed. Sovereignty is the right and ability to rule a set land area also known as a state. There are four types of sovereignty that a state has. The first type of sovereignty is legal sovereignty. It is, basically, the legal right to rule over a nation state, this type of sovereignty exists only when other legal states recognise the states existence as a state. The second type of sovereignty is Westphalian sovereignty. This type of sovereignty, established by the Treaty of Westphalia, stated that states should not suffer interference from other states. This, again, only exists if other states acknowledge this fact. The third type of sovereignty is domestic sovereignty. It is the ability to govern inside ones borders. The fourth, and final, type of sovereignty is interactive sovereignty. It is the ability to control borders. As globalisation has developed it has had an impact upon the four types of sovereignty. Legal sovereignty and the concept of statehood is not affected by globalisation as recognised states have the right to rule even if they do not have the ability to rule as in Somalia. Westphalian sovereignty has been affected, along with domestic sovereignty, with the rise of International Organisations such as the EU, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the USA’s increasing use of military intervention. Institutions such as the EU and the WTO have certain regulations that member states and potential members have to abide by to join and function within them. To join, the institutions dictate conditions that the states must reach, such as a low democracy index, 1 being completely democratic, a liberalised market and a good human rights record. Once the states are members of the institutions they give up some of their domestic sovereignty in return for economic and political benefits. Interactive sovereignty has become almost obsolete with the advent of capitalism and the aforementioned institution of the EU. It is increasingly difficult for states to control their borders, as capitalism requires a free movement of goods, capital, services and populations. Institutions such as the EU make it possible for the free movement of populations within them.

Despite the decline in state sovereignty there is a need for the state as the state can provide services more effectively than a private company or a global government. Private companies and global governments can offer the services provided by a state such as security, a legal system and infrastructure, the core components of state services, yet these are provided more effectively and efficiently by a state. A private company can provide military force as private security companies are the second biggest army in Iraq at the moment, however military force and security is provided more effectively by the state. The state has a duty to protect its citizens from external threat and the citizens, in turn, pay taxes to keep a standing military force. If the state fails to protect its citizens then the citizens are not obliged to pay their taxes. Military force and taxation are inextricably linked. The reason why military force is most effectively provided by a state because the citizens themselves have an identity with the state and would like to remain citizens of that state. This identity has not been eroded by globalisation as stateless peoples such as the Palestinians and Kurds toy with the idea of a state for themselves. The legal system and infrastructure within a state is most effectively applied by the state as the role of the state within disputes is that of a neutral arbiter, in liberal philosophy, and works for the benefit of the state itself, which is effectively operated through the domestic infrastructure.

Despite the erosion of state sovereignty through the process of globalisation, the state is still needed to provide essential services such as military force and security, a legal system and an effective infrastructure. These essential services are provided to citizens in exchange for a tax, which is also collected by the state. The citizens themselves have an interest in the state as state is still linked to the notion of identity and this identity protects and preserves the state from obsoletism.

Freedom and Equality

2009-05-05T11:29:00.001+01:00

Recently I went to hear Rev Jesse Jackson talk about Faith, Politics and Empowerment. Overall, it was a very good event and I thoroughly enjoyed myself. There were a few things that struck out at me, telling me what I should believe, and do believe anyway, he just put words to my thoughts.

One of the phrases he used was ‘freedom is a prerequisite for equality’. There is no believable reason why one would not believe this. It is logical reason, and therefore fact. However, there was something about his speech that got on my nerves. It was his advocacy of positive discrimination. There is nothing positive about discrimination, it favours one above the rest.

In the booklet that accompanied the speech it stated: ‘African Americans and people of colour must be included on corporate Board of Directors and senior executive leadership positions.’ Why should they? There is no reason to exclude someone on the basis of the colour of their skin, but there are plenty of reasons not to include them regardless of colour. To include someone on the basis of skin colour is racist, just like it is to exclude them. Employers and recruiters should be blind when it comes to recruiting and employing people. This is not just about race, but also gender, physical ability, creed etc. However there are some jobs which are unsuitable for certain people. A job such as shelf stacking is not going to be appropriate for someone who does not have the use of their arms.

What has caused contention in South Africa is the preference for Black Economic Empowerment (BEE), whereby if a white person and a black person with the same skills apply for the same job, the black person will get the job. The reasoning behind BEE is the need to have black people in the top jobs. However, by excluding a white person from a job, even if they are perhaps the best person for the job, is just as racist as the white apartheid regime. Many highly skilled South Africans are seeking jobs in Britain and other Commonwealth countries because, on the whole, Britain does not discriminate positively or negatively.

No, Britain is not perfect and society is far from equal, and there is still negative discrimination towards certain sections, for example the female workforce is paid less, on average, than their male counterparts. But to advocate positive discrimination is just as discriminatory than the system before if not more so. In this country and throughout the world, there needs to be equal opportunities from Birth through to Death so that individuals can realise their potential and be free. The process should be blind, just like the law is (in principle), so that the process and system does not discriminate negatively or positively. Male and Female; Black and White; Heterosexual and Homosexual; Disabled and Non-Disabled; we are all born equal and should remain so, ad infinitum.

Role of the Welfare State in the Recession

2009-04-26T13:20:00.001+01:00

As unemployment steadily climbs to 3 Million by 2010, it is imperative that there is a strong welfare state which acts as a safety net and ladder out of the recession. Following a Keynesian approach to recovery the state needs to intervene and increase public spending on public works in order to encourage economic growth. Alongside this there needs to be an increase in the minimum annual wage, accordingly with regional variations, in order to increase the disposable income which increases demand and therefore increases supply.

As the recession deepens the number of unemployed increases. So as not to worsen the situation, the state must make adequate provision to ensure that homes and possessions are not repossessed and there is a stable home base from which they can find re-employment. Training needs to be offered not after a year of being unemployed, as is the common practice, but almost immediately in order to endure that they can find employment beyond their traditional skill base. For example; an office worker will find it very hard to find employment if all that is offered is manual type labour and vice-versa. Training, if it is required, should be offered in order to redirect traditional skill bases towards areas of employment that is required by the state to encourage economic growth through public works.
By increasing spending on public works it not only increases immediate employment in the facilitating and construction of these projects but it will also create employment once the construction of schools, hospitals etc have been completed. This in turn also creates training projects for future employment in the aforementioned sectors. Now, more than ever, investment in education should become the primary objective of any government. It is not just important in the short-term gains of growing out of a recession through training, but in the long-term by ensuring a stabilisation of the economy through a well educated multi-skilled society. By building schools and hospitals, it not only reduces class sizes, but also creates more teaching positions. With the increase in the number of hospitals, education can be driven towards getting students involved in the health profession and industry. However this should not be the primary function of education, the primary function of education should be the creation of an autonomous individual who is well rounded in all aspects of education.

Now that unemployment and the stabilisation of the economy have been addressed, those in employment are as equally as vulnerable during a recession and vital to the recovery. The sustainable income for a single person living and working in London is £15,000p.a. before tax. After tax, this figure is reduced to £12,271. On the assumption that this person lives in a fairly cheap area of London and works in central London and has no debts, this ‘disposable’ income is absorbed into living expenses e.g. rent, council tax, utility bills, grocery bills, transport, and insurance. There is not enough left over to spend in the economy, therefore cannot be an increase in demand and the economy, in the short-term, remains in a recession. Any figure below £15,000p.a. is unfeasible or demands borrowing which with their wage, they cannot fund. By increasing this wage to £18,000p.a. gives the individual a disposable income of £14,441 or £2,000 after the accounting of living expenses. This £2,000 can be reinvested into the economy thus creating an increase in the supply and demand, without the need to rely upon the ‘credit’ system which, arguably, is responsible for the recession in the first place.

Therefore the role of the welfare state during a recession is to act as a safety net to the fallout of the recession. It is there to provide training for the unemployed so that employment can be found in areas beyond their traditional skill base. It is there to increase public spending on public works so as to increase immediate employment and encourage economic growth. It should also create long-term employment in the ‘front-line’ sectors of health and education. It should also be there to increase the minimum annual wage of those still in employment to increase disposable income and therefore demand and supply.

Take That Atheism!

2009-04-18T21:32:00.001+01:00

Man is ignorant, even myself writing this am ignorant. There is always something which shall escape the comprehension of man; whether it is the existence of a greater being or time travel. That is why man must have faith. Faith that there is a God or gods, or the faith that one day time travel will be obtainable. To reject the notion of a greater being is to reject faith and therefore reject all discoveries past, present and future.

On Tolerance

2009-04-18T13:19:00.000+01:00

I agree that toleration is "a willingness to allow people to think and act in ways of which we might disapprove". But toleration is much more than that. Toleration is a goal of personal autonomy and governs how people should interact. It also offers a balanced society as powerful interests can be countered and moderated by opposing views.

However, it does not imply an acceptance of all views. As we are living in a liberal society, we should oppose toleration of intolerant views, which threaten to make society less tolerant such as fascism etc. We do not live in a country that preaches the "anything goes" philosophy, but one that preaches tolerance.

Police Force or Police Service?

2009-04-17T15:42:00.000+01:00

The regrettable problem with Police and the Media is that they are always portrayed as the 'bad' guys. When in fact, most of the time, the are responding force for force against a very small minority whose sole purpose in life is to cause trouble! On the Guardian Website, there was footage of Police advancing into 'peaceful' protesters. The protesters were shouting, 'This is not a riot', which is wasn't. However the 'peaceful' protesters were standing between the Police and those that were aggravating the situation by throwing bottles etc at the Police. Peaceful Demonstrations are only peaceful when Anarchists and various other trouble makers no longer rear their ugly heads.

I do not condone the actions of a select few members of the Met, but the Met are the shock troops of the Police Service, just like the Paras are the shock troops of the British Army. I think the Police are struggling to come to terms with a change in guidelines. Gone are the days when they were a Police FORCE, now they are a Police SERVICE. Two very different things. A Force suggests using force to uphold the law, whereas a Service suggests working with the community etc to uphold the law. There are more examples of the Police being a service than a force, yet the Media will always pray upon the Police when they deviate from their intended service purpose.

Recently, there was research done on the public view of the Police and it wasn't favourable at all. The majority of the public have lost faith and trust in the Police. When the Media starts celebrating the achievements of the Police Service, rather than condemning the mistakes of the Police Force, then progress will be made towards restoring the faith and trust in the Police.

The State of Israel

2009-04-16T18:15:00.000+01:00

Recently in the news, the issue of Gaza and Israeli occupation has been brought to the fore. The ensuing debate inevitably brings into question the legitimacy of the Israeli state. Israel has not been in Jewish/Zionist (whatever you wish to call them) hands for around 2000 years. Before the Arabs it was Roman and it has, until the formation of Israel in 1948, been referred to as Palestine.

So, why should Israel continue to receive diplomatic and financial support from the West? The short and simple answer is oil. The West has an oil dependent economy and the Middle East has the largest reserves of the Black stuff. As of 2005, the Arab world was producing a Third of the total output. That is 26,000,000 barrels a day. Russia, the nearest competitor, produces just under 10,000,000 barrels a day. Seeing that post-Soviet Russia is just as Soviet as it has ever been, one can understand the West's refusal to exploit Russia's resources. How do you protect such a highly profitable and volatile region?
Before 1945 the answer was simple, we had visible empires. The British and French controlled the region through mandates and protectorates. Post WW2, the Americans push for the right to self-determination, a founding principle of the UN. The empires slowly begin a period of decolonisation across the region and world. But with Arab nationalism comes aggressive anti-west sentiments. The Saudi Family is currently, doggedly, pro-western. But that comes at a price of Arms contracts etc, they are not naturally pro-western. What is needed is a state to keep them all under control. Hence the fear factor of Israel. Israel exists, not as a natural state for the Jewish Tribes, but as a way of keeping the Arabs under control - unifying them against a common enemy, but also an enemy that can, if allowed to run wild, dominate the entire region. The Israeli state exists as a source of non-visible imperialism to keep the Arab nations under control, so the West can benefit from the extraction of oil.

Why Israel, why the Jews?
After WW2 the Jews were offered a home land in the Nevada desert and an alternative in the Canadian wilderness as a way of solving the problems of the diaspora as well as unifying them in the wake of Nazi anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. It was not the fact that the Eastern European Jews rejected the idea of a homeland in Nevada or Canada. It was the rejection of the already assimilated American Jews of these newcomers - who were different in their views and culture. Poor in comparison to the extreme wealth of the Americans. They paid, and continue to pay, for the establishment and maintenance of the Israeli state. It was the rejection of 'kinsmen' and the aggressive nature, because of the atrocities they suffered in the Holocaust, that the Israeli state was founded and a willing ally was found to repress Arab nationalism so that the West could exploit the natural resources of the region. 14th May 1948 - founding of the Israeli State. 15th May 1948 - beginning of the first Arab-Israeli War.

After the Oil
Once the oil reserves have dried up what will become of the Jewish state? Currently Israel is subsidised $20,000 per person/per annum by the American government and the American Jew lobby. This is making the state more than viable, but from a Western perspective the state only exists to defend Western interests in the region - oil. Once that resource has dried up there is no need to defend and subsidise Israel for it has outlived its usefulness. We will most likely, out of principle, continue to back Israel, but not as fiercely as before because there will be need to bring the Arab nations on board, not because they have what we want, more because they have something that is damaging to our way of life - training ground for international terrorism. Even though the current Western administrations have shied away from the rhetoric of the 'war on terror' the perceived threat is still out there. The placation of the Arab nations will placate domestic feeling, as the governments are perceived to be doing something.

Direct Action, Stunts and Protests

2009-04-16T18:13:00.000+01:00

Direct Action can be useful in raising awareness for issues such as Climate Change and ending global poverty etc. However stunts involved, some amusing such as the green custard thrown at Lord Mandelson, can put off and inhibit many would be supporters.

The reasons behind it, first; the British, as a collective, do not like to have life disrupted and prefer to moan and complain about their grievances. Nothing will ever get done because of it, so my hat goes off to those that have had enough of complaining. Second; is that Britain does not have a militant and/or revolutionary background, much unlike France.

The French will, on any issue, rally to the streets in mass protest - sometimes engaging with the Gendarmes in open and armed conflict. This is because the French, since 1789, have had militancy and armed revolution embedded in their political culture. If something upsets the French they will gather on the streets and throw rocks at the Gendarmes. If something upsets the British, there will be a flood of politely worded letters to the offices of daily newspapers and MPs.

In principal mass protests show governments that a portion of society is unhappy with certain issues, however the political culture of Britain needs to shift dramatically for the protests to have any credibility with politicians.

Me and the Labour Party

2009-04-16T18:07:00.000+01:00

I’ve been thinking about why I joined the Labour Party, I’m only a recent member, and in short I joined because the party is the only Social Democratic Party that I can identify with. I’m now 21 going on 22 and I was a member of the Conservative Party between the ages of 16 and 20. That’s four years of dedication to a party who are failing everyone but their friends (big business). Coming from a rural Middle Class background, the Conservatives were the logical choice for someone of a young age, especially when ones family are Conservative supporters, not members. I can proudly say that I did not vote for David Cameron in the Leadership election, I voted for Ken Clarke. I left the Conservatives once David Cameron had shown his true colours, as the typical Tory who looks after his friends – George Osbourne! For a while, I was independent floating between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. In local elections I have always voted for Lib Dems after experiences in Mid Devon, of them being amazing and implementing policies that are good for a local population, especially one that is traditionally Conservative and hostile.

What attracted me to the Labour Party instead of the Liberal Democrats was not down to policy, in fact I disagree with a fair amount of policy implemented by this current government, but more the idea of what the party stands for and individuals I have met, belonging to either party. I love the idea of a Party that stands for equality and advancement of all! But, that seems to have gone astray in certain areas of the Parliamentary Party. I am certain that these ideas and ideals still hold true in the grassroots. The individuals who I have met, who at the moment will remain nameless due to privacy laws but to give a hint are/have been involved in NUS, has warmed me to the Labour Party. They are welcoming of everyone regardless of background, and it is this non-judgemental attitude, along with other reasons, why I am proud to be a Labour member. I look forward to involving myself in the Labour Party in the coming years, through thick and thin, I will be there.