The weekend saw, what many have called the ‘most boring leadership contest ever’, draw to a close with the younger Miliband brother, Ed, made leader of the Labour Party. Ed trailed behind his brother in the first few rounds of voting, but as Ed Ball’s votes were redistributed the former eventually won with 50.65% of the vote to David’s 49.35%. But will his appointment be the much-needed change of direction the Labour party needs and will it once again be a party that is trusted by the electorate to govern Great Britain?
But instead of spending this blog discussing what Ed’s appointment means for Labour’s future, I would rather argue why David was in fact the right choice and the choice that I believe would have strengthened the Labour party more and thus provided the coalition government with a greater challenge as opposition.
David has, like Ed, had an extremely successful career in politics and he particularly flourished under Blair, to whom he was Head of Policy from 1994-2002 when he became a member of parliament, holding various cabinet roles. He was born to lead it seems, winning a place at Oxford University not on academic achievement but possessing the all-important ‘gift of the gab’. One of his tutors commented, ‘the state-school boy impressed at interview’. But why else should the coalition government be relieved that their opposing leader isn’t the elder of the two Milibands?
As a Conservative supporter at the last election, I was sick and tired of Labour and particularly Gordon Brown. Countless mistakes were made in their final few years, whether it was their poor handling of the economy or the expenses scandal, I wanted change and could only ever see myself warming round to the Labour vision if their next leader could account for the sham that was their general election campaign 2010, and for the new leader to distance themselves from the ignorant policy adopted by the party. David for me was this man, or as close to it as the party could offer. He was quick to describe the election campaign as ‘a car crash’, which it was when we remember the confused proposals by Brown and Darling over plans for the deficit (which they could barely acknowledge let alone take responsibility for), or the numerous blunders by our then PM Gordon Brown on the televised debates or meeting potential voters. But more importantly, David’s stance put himself in a more central position than his rivals in the leadership contest. And it was this, it seems, that cost him his place at the head of the party. His brother Ed secured the votes of the Trade Unions and affiliated societies and this tipped the result marginally in his favour. But at what cost to the party? He is adamant that he is ‘nobodies man’ but Trade Unions are demanding and I can see him struggling to keep this as the case. He will do well to remember that when the Labour party had its most support, in their first term following the 1997 landslide victory, Tony Blair maintained the ‘no nonsense’ approach towards the Trade Unions that the Conservatives had. Their interfering nature, creating endless market failure through inefficiencies will do no favours to the Labour party in times when cutting costs and their deficit is crucial. The electorate is waiting for the Labour party to finally talk some sense economically, and I wonder whether the Ed and his strong-left leanings is the way to go.
But Ed could still be the man to unite the party, and lead them to some form of credibility that they have lost in the last few years. Something that reassured me of his competence was his admission that he ‘would not oppose every cut’. The nation needs stability at a time when essential cuts are to be made. Taking the easy road, by taking cheap shots at vital cuts, will be a quick way to gain votes but not a way to regain essential trust and reliable policy. As a conservative supporter, and after a summer without an active Labour Party, I look forward to the challenge Ed and his party will pose to the government… although im not concerned.
Monday, 27 September 2010
Wednesday, 1 September 2010
Should Pope Benedict XVI be welcomed to Britain this month?
As the date of the Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to the UK fast approaches, it seems there is most certainly a debate to be had. Lord Patten of Barnes who is to oversee the plans and the occasion in its entirety comments that, ‘the significance of the first ever state visit by Benedict outweighs the costs’. The costs to which he refers to are possibly the ever-growing bill which the taxpayer will be asked to foot (over £20 million to date claims the Daily Telegraph). Or perhaps he refers to the costs which will be imposed on homosexuals, women, victims of clerical abuse and actually every man woman or child who choose not to buy into this institution which spreads fear and ignorance. For Lord Patten of Barnes to be right, the Pope better be good!
The purpose for the visit is to ‘reaffirm the faith of Catholics in Britain, at a time when harsh cutbacks point to a period of hardship’. On his visit (following invitation by the Queen), the Pope will hold ceremonies in Scotland and England and meet former prime ministers Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown; but should the monarchy have requested a visit from the leader of a church which has been internationally disgraced this year and for many years before? Is there honestly sufficient demand from our secularist country to warrant an expensive and offensive tour made by the head of the Catholic Church?
To which I reply and will continue argue, ‘let him come!’ This visit could not have unfolded more perfectly for those of us ‘blessed’ with an open-mind and opposed to the church; it has been a sham from day one. Firstly there was a leaked memo from the Foreign Office which suggested the Pope should bless a gay marriage and launch a Benedict-brand of condom while visiting. Furthermore, we were treated to venue changes, a general election which shunned the Vatican’s upcoming holiday as a priority leading to delayed plans. But I wish to focus and dedicate my main writing to the explosion in evidence which finally tarred ‘the cloths’ of the Vatican and its leader regarding the sexual abuse claims, with evidence to support, against the Catholic Church.
I’m sure many who read this will have read the stories about how many men in positions of high responsibility within this church abused young men and women. Often to such an extent that they would never speak out about their experiences, and when some victims were so bold as to attempt to hold those responsible accountable for their monstrous actions, they were silenced by Pope Ratzinger and others in the same corrupt and disgusting organisation. Child rape allegations were not dealt with in North America, Ireland and Norway, and accused priests were simply moved to different parishes putting more and more children at risk. But I continue support the visit of the man who shamelessly leads this because of what I hope it will do to the institution. What it will, I hope, do to the Catholic institution, is to show the open minded and free people of Britain and the world the church for what it really is. An institution that prefers to put their struggling and flailing reputation before the justice and safety of those who put their trust into said corrupt organisation. Supporters claim Ratzinger to be the most pro-active Pope to attempt to address complaints, which im afraid says far more about the sick nature of a dying and exposed faith than it does about the Pope.
The height of protests to the visit comes from two humanitarian lawyers who, with the backing of prominent intellectuals and atheists Hitchens and Dawkins, wish to arrest the Ratzinger on charges of crimes against humanity. ‘He is not’, claims Hitchens, ‘above or outside the law. The institutionalised concealment of child rape is a crime under any law and demands not private ceremonies of repentance or church-funded payoffs, but justice and punishment.’ Dawkins continues with, ‘(The pope) is man who’s first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence’. Britain, I hope and am sure, is a nation which will reject the Catholic mission to reaffirm faith and belief and instead replace it with anger at a man who heads such an organisation.
So where to conclude? This has been by far my most unbalanced post to date, but where religion is concerned and particularly Catholicism, the way in which it feeds off fear and the unknown is cowardly and shameful in my book, and I am tired of hesitating in voicing that view. I have always wanted more to be done to reduce the role religion plays in society, so that one day children weren’t taught its message as though it had a shred of evidence supporting it; so that people were rational and sceptical where necessary, always able to ask ‘why’ before believing or claiming to know something. But now I perhaps think that the times are allowing these institutions to dissolve themselves. Ratzinger himself said, ‘the greatest threat to the church comes from the sin within’ and he is right. The church continues with arrogance as though its supposed authority is listened to in the modern world as it once was when the human race wore the heavy coat of ignorance and fear, but the times of changed and we will one day refuse to listen any more. When asked if the Pope should resign, Dawkins perhaps surprisingly replied, ‘he is perfectly qualified to lead the Roman Catholic church… No, Pope Ratzinger should not resign. He should remain in charge of the whole rotten edifice - the whole profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution - while it tumbles, amid a stench of incense and a rain of tourist-kitsch sacred hearts and preposterously crowned virgins, about his ears.’ And as an atheist who wishes to see the church crumble, I concur that it is good to see him remain. Keeping him may have held onto some form of dignity; leavng him at the helm ensures that this offensive organisation crumbles from the top and within.
The purpose for the visit is to ‘reaffirm the faith of Catholics in Britain, at a time when harsh cutbacks point to a period of hardship’. On his visit (following invitation by the Queen), the Pope will hold ceremonies in Scotland and England and meet former prime ministers Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown; but should the monarchy have requested a visit from the leader of a church which has been internationally disgraced this year and for many years before? Is there honestly sufficient demand from our secularist country to warrant an expensive and offensive tour made by the head of the Catholic Church?
To which I reply and will continue argue, ‘let him come!’ This visit could not have unfolded more perfectly for those of us ‘blessed’ with an open-mind and opposed to the church; it has been a sham from day one. Firstly there was a leaked memo from the Foreign Office which suggested the Pope should bless a gay marriage and launch a Benedict-brand of condom while visiting. Furthermore, we were treated to venue changes, a general election which shunned the Vatican’s upcoming holiday as a priority leading to delayed plans. But I wish to focus and dedicate my main writing to the explosion in evidence which finally tarred ‘the cloths’ of the Vatican and its leader regarding the sexual abuse claims, with evidence to support, against the Catholic Church.
I’m sure many who read this will have read the stories about how many men in positions of high responsibility within this church abused young men and women. Often to such an extent that they would never speak out about their experiences, and when some victims were so bold as to attempt to hold those responsible accountable for their monstrous actions, they were silenced by Pope Ratzinger and others in the same corrupt and disgusting organisation. Child rape allegations were not dealt with in North America, Ireland and Norway, and accused priests were simply moved to different parishes putting more and more children at risk. But I continue support the visit of the man who shamelessly leads this because of what I hope it will do to the institution. What it will, I hope, do to the Catholic institution, is to show the open minded and free people of Britain and the world the church for what it really is. An institution that prefers to put their struggling and flailing reputation before the justice and safety of those who put their trust into said corrupt organisation. Supporters claim Ratzinger to be the most pro-active Pope to attempt to address complaints, which im afraid says far more about the sick nature of a dying and exposed faith than it does about the Pope.
The height of protests to the visit comes from two humanitarian lawyers who, with the backing of prominent intellectuals and atheists Hitchens and Dawkins, wish to arrest the Ratzinger on charges of crimes against humanity. ‘He is not’, claims Hitchens, ‘above or outside the law. The institutionalised concealment of child rape is a crime under any law and demands not private ceremonies of repentance or church-funded payoffs, but justice and punishment.’ Dawkins continues with, ‘(The pope) is man who’s first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence’. Britain, I hope and am sure, is a nation which will reject the Catholic mission to reaffirm faith and belief and instead replace it with anger at a man who heads such an organisation.
So where to conclude? This has been by far my most unbalanced post to date, but where religion is concerned and particularly Catholicism, the way in which it feeds off fear and the unknown is cowardly and shameful in my book, and I am tired of hesitating in voicing that view. I have always wanted more to be done to reduce the role religion plays in society, so that one day children weren’t taught its message as though it had a shred of evidence supporting it; so that people were rational and sceptical where necessary, always able to ask ‘why’ before believing or claiming to know something. But now I perhaps think that the times are allowing these institutions to dissolve themselves. Ratzinger himself said, ‘the greatest threat to the church comes from the sin within’ and he is right. The church continues with arrogance as though its supposed authority is listened to in the modern world as it once was when the human race wore the heavy coat of ignorance and fear, but the times of changed and we will one day refuse to listen any more. When asked if the Pope should resign, Dawkins perhaps surprisingly replied, ‘he is perfectly qualified to lead the Roman Catholic church… No, Pope Ratzinger should not resign. He should remain in charge of the whole rotten edifice - the whole profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution - while it tumbles, amid a stench of incense and a rain of tourist-kitsch sacred hearts and preposterously crowned virgins, about his ears.’ And as an atheist who wishes to see the church crumble, I concur that it is good to see him remain. Keeping him may have held onto some form of dignity; leavng him at the helm ensures that this offensive organisation crumbles from the top and within.
Wednesday, 18 August 2010
The Lib Dems; sacrificed for Britain's future?
It has now been 100 days since the start of this coalition government and rather than give a general review, I thought a more specific comment on the important Liberal Democrat involvement was necessary.
As we now know, the days following the general election result saw the future of the country in Nick Clegg’s hands as the two major parties met with him, offering deals and compromises with the hope of forming a government (needing the additional seats his party provided for a mandate to govern). Often I feel credit was not given in its rightful amount to Clegg for the sheer scale of the decision he had to make, and the sacrifices that would follow.
The most obvious choice for the Liberal Democrats was to form a government with the Labour Party; a party that fell much closer to itself on the political spectrum than it did to the Tories. The Conservatives, a party that has always been deemed elitist and a party where the policy was steered toward helping the wealthy was at first look a staunch contrast to the Liberal Democrat foundations which plug the importance of greater equality and individual freedom.
However, whilst all of this historical differences between the two, the crucial facts were the same. The leaders of both the parties wanted the same two important things: to put the stability and future of the country before party politics and to remove a party that had done, and were planning to do, great damage to this country.
In choosing to enter into the coalition government with the Tories, Clegg has faced a crisis of conscience and constant opposition to any move he makes. With polls suggesting that ‘of those who voted for the Lib Dems on May 6th, only 46% would vote now’ and ‘just 40% (of those who voted Lib Dem) approve of the coalition’s performance’. A common view – and fear for many liberal supporters – is that the result of this coalition government will leave the party in tatters and set them back years on the progress they have made.
However, this is nonsense! If you’d asked me prior to May 6th to comment on the Lib Dem campaign and ‘Clegmania’ I would have laughed and spent five minutes arguing that the party, although having some cute ideas such as ‘no tuition fees’, were not serious candidates and definitely not ready for government (their plans for crude bank legislation and the removal of Trident supported this decision). But in the 5 days that followed the general election, with Nick Clegg at the helm, the Liberal Democrats went from being political lightweights to heavyweights and an important part of a reforming government boldly confronting the deficit and making some of the biggest decisions made in recent years.
So, I would conclude without second thought that the country and its future are in much safer hands with the current government. But a more important conclusion is that Britain’s more prosperous and stable future is as a result of the brave move made by Clegg and his party to move into the unknown, at the cost of present popularity in exchange for the bigger and wider issues we face.
As we now know, the days following the general election result saw the future of the country in Nick Clegg’s hands as the two major parties met with him, offering deals and compromises with the hope of forming a government (needing the additional seats his party provided for a mandate to govern). Often I feel credit was not given in its rightful amount to Clegg for the sheer scale of the decision he had to make, and the sacrifices that would follow.
The most obvious choice for the Liberal Democrats was to form a government with the Labour Party; a party that fell much closer to itself on the political spectrum than it did to the Tories. The Conservatives, a party that has always been deemed elitist and a party where the policy was steered toward helping the wealthy was at first look a staunch contrast to the Liberal Democrat foundations which plug the importance of greater equality and individual freedom.
However, whilst all of this historical differences between the two, the crucial facts were the same. The leaders of both the parties wanted the same two important things: to put the stability and future of the country before party politics and to remove a party that had done, and were planning to do, great damage to this country.
In choosing to enter into the coalition government with the Tories, Clegg has faced a crisis of conscience and constant opposition to any move he makes. With polls suggesting that ‘of those who voted for the Lib Dems on May 6th, only 46% would vote now’ and ‘just 40% (of those who voted Lib Dem) approve of the coalition’s performance’. A common view – and fear for many liberal supporters – is that the result of this coalition government will leave the party in tatters and set them back years on the progress they have made.
However, this is nonsense! If you’d asked me prior to May 6th to comment on the Lib Dem campaign and ‘Clegmania’ I would have laughed and spent five minutes arguing that the party, although having some cute ideas such as ‘no tuition fees’, were not serious candidates and definitely not ready for government (their plans for crude bank legislation and the removal of Trident supported this decision). But in the 5 days that followed the general election, with Nick Clegg at the helm, the Liberal Democrats went from being political lightweights to heavyweights and an important part of a reforming government boldly confronting the deficit and making some of the biggest decisions made in recent years.
So, I would conclude without second thought that the country and its future are in much safer hands with the current government. But a more important conclusion is that Britain’s more prosperous and stable future is as a result of the brave move made by Clegg and his party to move into the unknown, at the cost of present popularity in exchange for the bigger and wider issues we face.
Saturday, 7 August 2010
Wikileaks: the first of many debates about this website which makes available top secret documents
As parliament closes for summer, the news on British politics dries up a little. This, however, is not to stop wider issues continuing to rage on and pose new debates. I would like to use this post to briefly open a debate about the website Wikileaks (http://wikileaks.org/).
Wikileaks, for those who are new to the webpage, is ‘a public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public’. Julian Assange, the founder of the website, receives documents from people from across the globe who wish to leak information on a vast range of different issues, such as war in Afghanistan, and he publishes them. This has meant that confidential documents belonging to the CIA regarding events taken place around the world are available for viewing by me or you with a few simple clicks of the mouse.
Many are thinking and arguing that this is a great thing, the Time magazine claiming ‘(Wikileaks) could become as important a journalistic tool as the Freedom of Information Act’. Let us briefly look at the arguments for and against the availability of this new tool:
The release of this information has shed evidence of vast civilian casualties in areas in which the US and UK’s forces are operating. With more people knowing about the atrocities that come with every war, it will become harder for governments to lead their country to war. Furthermore, armies will have to be more careful to reduce the number of civilian casualties because of the increased transparency of journalism, making war safer in the future. Wikileaks itself argues this very point; the increased scrutiny the website provides leads to stronger democracies, less corruption and better government.
However, although it is interesting to ‘have a nosey through secret documents’, is it really wise to have top secret documents containing information about nation’s military and economic capabilities available to everyone in the world? Furthermore, Wikileaks has failed to read through all the documents it publishes which shows a carelessness when handling such important information that is vital to every nation’s national security, but also has published the details of Afghan informants who risk their lives for our cause. The Taliban has already promised to punish all those they find on the list.
For me, it is clear that Wikileaks and its founder Assange have not thought through the full implications of their new journalistic tool. This also highlights the dangers of information sharing and the internets capability of seriously threatening the security of nations and its people. This, im sure, will be a topic debated much further…
Wikileaks, for those who are new to the webpage, is ‘a public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public’. Julian Assange, the founder of the website, receives documents from people from across the globe who wish to leak information on a vast range of different issues, such as war in Afghanistan, and he publishes them. This has meant that confidential documents belonging to the CIA regarding events taken place around the world are available for viewing by me or you with a few simple clicks of the mouse.
Many are thinking and arguing that this is a great thing, the Time magazine claiming ‘(Wikileaks) could become as important a journalistic tool as the Freedom of Information Act’. Let us briefly look at the arguments for and against the availability of this new tool:
The release of this information has shed evidence of vast civilian casualties in areas in which the US and UK’s forces are operating. With more people knowing about the atrocities that come with every war, it will become harder for governments to lead their country to war. Furthermore, armies will have to be more careful to reduce the number of civilian casualties because of the increased transparency of journalism, making war safer in the future. Wikileaks itself argues this very point; the increased scrutiny the website provides leads to stronger democracies, less corruption and better government.
However, although it is interesting to ‘have a nosey through secret documents’, is it really wise to have top secret documents containing information about nation’s military and economic capabilities available to everyone in the world? Furthermore, Wikileaks has failed to read through all the documents it publishes which shows a carelessness when handling such important information that is vital to every nation’s national security, but also has published the details of Afghan informants who risk their lives for our cause. The Taliban has already promised to punish all those they find on the list.
For me, it is clear that Wikileaks and its founder Assange have not thought through the full implications of their new journalistic tool. This also highlights the dangers of information sharing and the internets capability of seriously threatening the security of nations and its people. This, im sure, will be a topic debated much further…
Thursday, 5 August 2010
Our need for welfare reform
With PM Cameron recently bringing the entitlement of council housing into question, it seems to be the tip of a much bigger problem (or at least debate) over welfare and its provision. I look forward to any debate that will follow this post, and I hope there will be some!
In a recent blog post, Labour leadership candidate Ed Balls claimed ‘Labour lost the support of too many people on lower incomes who felt (they) were no longer on their side’ and that the Labour party needing to regain middle-income support was ‘a myth’. The rest of my post here will be arguing on the contrary to this point.
My family are middle-income. Many I know and the families we socialise with are also middle-income. And they would all, for the most part, agree that they have never been worse off than they were under a Labour government. From long and extended lectures at the dinner table, and the reading that followed, I can totally understand and want to say a little something about it! Those on middle-incomes are often worse off, and I know this fact from my time during sixth-form and university (although this is not me expecting sympathy, I live comfortably enough). But it irritated me to see peers receive £30 EMA per week in cash presumably on the assumption that my parents, with our ‘higher income status’, gave me a similar amount. The money, intended for school supplies or ‘hot dinners’ was of course spent on clothes or alcohol (luxuries my pocket money surprisingly didn’t cover). It is frustrating now at university, to see some with separated parents (a situation that of course I wouldn’t wish on anyone) to claim on the household with the lowest income, entitling them to grants etc, without the consideration of alimony payments or further welfare payments from the government. The government it would seem supports divorce. A single parent we know has just returned from her third holiday this year and had her house redecorated; this is not, im sure you will agree, the actions that are normally attributed to a single parent, and is not uncommon; particularly when many married and ‘middle-class’ income families cannot afford a single holiday due to welfare imbalances and the state of the economy. It is left to be said that there is often no such thing as a single parent, really, because what the ‘welfare state’ classes as a single parent forgets the contribution of the other parent (which is often painfully high).
I remember a story a friend of mine told me who came from a lower income area. The girls in his class at senior school (year 9/year 10) were discussing their plans for the future. These plans did not involve work directly, instead having a child when they left school after their GCSE’s and getting ‘a house’ (council house guaranteed from the government). Surely the day has got to come when those who work hard for what they have (a comfortable living) should not have to pay for the choices of others. If someone has a child at the age of 16 that was not intended, it is bad luck. But why is that society’s fault and thus society’s responsibility to fund it? Of course, the result of a complete withdrawal to fund circumstances such as these would result in many families living below the poverty line, which is no suitable place for a newborn. In addition, every child deserves the opportunity to achieve whatever he or she chooses in life and withholding funds to house and thus support these children would prevent this. But it remains true, by continuing to hand out welfare at the current rate is sending out the wrong message to those claiming; that they can always claim, and make whatever life decision they choose to and the government (taxpayer) will always support them financially.
It is for this reason that I would like to propose to you an alternative claimant system, which is used by the Swiss (the particular example is for those claiming child benefits). In Switzerland, the claim is made to local decentralised governments. Their government is split so that each area has a small domain who’s purpose is addressing local issues. On claiming, an official will analyse the new mother’s situation and case for claiming: if the father can finance the change in situation, he will. If the family can finance and house the mother and child, it will. Finally, as a last resort, the local commune will provide financial assistance. But due to the nature of the benefits, they will be more effective. Unlike in the UK, where benefits give the receiver an ‘impersonal legal right’ to claim, in Switzerland the claimant will be amongst those who have assisted her/him everyday; at the café, at the supermarket etc. This encourages those to claim only as a last resort and appear more gracious at the welfare, as opposed the believing it to be ‘one’s right’ as in this country.
Il conclude now. Readers may think these views harsh, unforgiving, misguided or ignorant to a situation I have been fortunate enough to have avoided (so far). But I assure you, I post this as the opening to a debate that this ‘nanny’ state needs, and not a firm claim to know what is right and just. Having a child out of wedlock or at a young age is unfortunate but does it need to be unfortunate for everyone? I have made generalisations in the piece for simplicity and not out of carelessness; I readily acknowledge that the examples used do not apply to all in those situations. Finally, I expect perhaps to receive generic ‘Tory’ criticism about how I know not of the problems which face those on ‘lower incomes’ but this is not written by an Old Etonian, but instead by one of ‘Labour’s ‘apparently’ safe middle-income voters’.
In a recent blog post, Labour leadership candidate Ed Balls claimed ‘Labour lost the support of too many people on lower incomes who felt (they) were no longer on their side’ and that the Labour party needing to regain middle-income support was ‘a myth’. The rest of my post here will be arguing on the contrary to this point.
My family are middle-income. Many I know and the families we socialise with are also middle-income. And they would all, for the most part, agree that they have never been worse off than they were under a Labour government. From long and extended lectures at the dinner table, and the reading that followed, I can totally understand and want to say a little something about it! Those on middle-incomes are often worse off, and I know this fact from my time during sixth-form and university (although this is not me expecting sympathy, I live comfortably enough). But it irritated me to see peers receive £30 EMA per week in cash presumably on the assumption that my parents, with our ‘higher income status’, gave me a similar amount. The money, intended for school supplies or ‘hot dinners’ was of course spent on clothes or alcohol (luxuries my pocket money surprisingly didn’t cover). It is frustrating now at university, to see some with separated parents (a situation that of course I wouldn’t wish on anyone) to claim on the household with the lowest income, entitling them to grants etc, without the consideration of alimony payments or further welfare payments from the government. The government it would seem supports divorce. A single parent we know has just returned from her third holiday this year and had her house redecorated; this is not, im sure you will agree, the actions that are normally attributed to a single parent, and is not uncommon; particularly when many married and ‘middle-class’ income families cannot afford a single holiday due to welfare imbalances and the state of the economy. It is left to be said that there is often no such thing as a single parent, really, because what the ‘welfare state’ classes as a single parent forgets the contribution of the other parent (which is often painfully high).
I remember a story a friend of mine told me who came from a lower income area. The girls in his class at senior school (year 9/year 10) were discussing their plans for the future. These plans did not involve work directly, instead having a child when they left school after their GCSE’s and getting ‘a house’ (council house guaranteed from the government). Surely the day has got to come when those who work hard for what they have (a comfortable living) should not have to pay for the choices of others. If someone has a child at the age of 16 that was not intended, it is bad luck. But why is that society’s fault and thus society’s responsibility to fund it? Of course, the result of a complete withdrawal to fund circumstances such as these would result in many families living below the poverty line, which is no suitable place for a newborn. In addition, every child deserves the opportunity to achieve whatever he or she chooses in life and withholding funds to house and thus support these children would prevent this. But it remains true, by continuing to hand out welfare at the current rate is sending out the wrong message to those claiming; that they can always claim, and make whatever life decision they choose to and the government (taxpayer) will always support them financially.
It is for this reason that I would like to propose to you an alternative claimant system, which is used by the Swiss (the particular example is for those claiming child benefits). In Switzerland, the claim is made to local decentralised governments. Their government is split so that each area has a small domain who’s purpose is addressing local issues. On claiming, an official will analyse the new mother’s situation and case for claiming: if the father can finance the change in situation, he will. If the family can finance and house the mother and child, it will. Finally, as a last resort, the local commune will provide financial assistance. But due to the nature of the benefits, they will be more effective. Unlike in the UK, where benefits give the receiver an ‘impersonal legal right’ to claim, in Switzerland the claimant will be amongst those who have assisted her/him everyday; at the café, at the supermarket etc. This encourages those to claim only as a last resort and appear more gracious at the welfare, as opposed the believing it to be ‘one’s right’ as in this country.
Il conclude now. Readers may think these views harsh, unforgiving, misguided or ignorant to a situation I have been fortunate enough to have avoided (so far). But I assure you, I post this as the opening to a debate that this ‘nanny’ state needs, and not a firm claim to know what is right and just. Having a child out of wedlock or at a young age is unfortunate but does it need to be unfortunate for everyone? I have made generalisations in the piece for simplicity and not out of carelessness; I readily acknowledge that the examples used do not apply to all in those situations. Finally, I expect perhaps to receive generic ‘Tory’ criticism about how I know not of the problems which face those on ‘lower incomes’ but this is not written by an Old Etonian, but instead by one of ‘Labour’s ‘apparently’ safe middle-income voters’.
Tuesday, 3 August 2010
Cameron: International liability or much needed straight talker?
Yesterday the Pakistani foreign office summoned the British envoy for a meeting to discuss a broad range of bilateral issues, including President Zardari’s planned visit to the UK. There have been widespread protests in the country, which has more recently included the burning of an effigy of our Prime Minister, following comments by Cameron which insinuated that Pakistan was ‘looking both ways’ and helping terrorist groups operating in the neighbouring country Afghanistan. The Pakistani intelligence agency has already cancelled a trip to the UK to express their disapproval over Mr Cameron’s words.
This incident in Pakistan is the latest in a new approach to foreign policy by the new government, and follows directly from a speech given by Cameron in Turkey in which he referred to Gaza as ‘an open prison’, a comment which angered Israel. But is this, as the former foreign secretary David Miliband described, an example of the Prime Minister being a ‘loudmouth’ or is this a welcome relief for Britain who under a Labour government became renowned for its ‘owner pet’ relationship with the US and its diplomatic gaffes everywhere else?
William Hague, the new foreign secretary has ‘torn up the book on foreign policy’ from the off. He says from now on Britain will, ‘unashamedly pursue a foreign policy which benefits the national interest’. If it has been decided that a war against terror in Afghanistan is in our national interest, then Pakistan’s ‘playing of both sides’, as strongly suggested by numerous intelligence reports and leaked information provided by Wikileak, conflicts with this. It is for this reason that I do not agree with David Miliband that our Prime Minister is acting like a ‘loudmouth’ when he openly and shamelessly defends the British Army’s efforts in Afghanistan by his ‘no nonsense’ approach in condemning Pakistan’s actions.
Furthermore, it would be wise to take criticism from Miliband with a pinch of salt when considering his record on the international political scene. The shambolic tour of India he embarked upon with Gordon Brown which left ties damaged could perhaps be topped only with his assertion that the war on terror was ‘a mistake’ in George W Bush’s last days of office.
So it would seem that the days of a clumsy British foreign policy are thankfully over and we can now look forward to a period of diplomacy that gives the UK a reputation as ‘straight talking’ and necessarily ‘to-the-point’.
This incident in Pakistan is the latest in a new approach to foreign policy by the new government, and follows directly from a speech given by Cameron in Turkey in which he referred to Gaza as ‘an open prison’, a comment which angered Israel. But is this, as the former foreign secretary David Miliband described, an example of the Prime Minister being a ‘loudmouth’ or is this a welcome relief for Britain who under a Labour government became renowned for its ‘owner pet’ relationship with the US and its diplomatic gaffes everywhere else?
William Hague, the new foreign secretary has ‘torn up the book on foreign policy’ from the off. He says from now on Britain will, ‘unashamedly pursue a foreign policy which benefits the national interest’. If it has been decided that a war against terror in Afghanistan is in our national interest, then Pakistan’s ‘playing of both sides’, as strongly suggested by numerous intelligence reports and leaked information provided by Wikileak, conflicts with this. It is for this reason that I do not agree with David Miliband that our Prime Minister is acting like a ‘loudmouth’ when he openly and shamelessly defends the British Army’s efforts in Afghanistan by his ‘no nonsense’ approach in condemning Pakistan’s actions.
Furthermore, it would be wise to take criticism from Miliband with a pinch of salt when considering his record on the international political scene. The shambolic tour of India he embarked upon with Gordon Brown which left ties damaged could perhaps be topped only with his assertion that the war on terror was ‘a mistake’ in George W Bush’s last days of office.
So it would seem that the days of a clumsy British foreign policy are thankfully over and we can now look forward to a period of diplomacy that gives the UK a reputation as ‘straight talking’ and necessarily ‘to-the-point’.
Friday, 30 July 2010
Labour party arrogance cost them coalition decision
You may have watched the documentary on BBC2 last night by Nick Robinson, ‘the 5 days that changed Britain’. It covered, in detail the 5 days following the results of the general election May 2010 with interviews with David Cameron, Nick Clegg and other prominent figures in the negotiations (excluding Gordon Brown for obvious reasons) which lead to the coalition government we have in place now.
What struck me about the programme was the arrogant nature of Labour’s conduct throughout the important 5 days. Ed Balls, a key negotiator for Labour and a current leadership candidate claimed that ‘Labour did not have plans for a coalition government’. Does this imply that they were expecting to lose the general election in May? They certainly shouldn’t have been expecting a win. What’s worse is that even after days of negotiation between the Torys and the Libdems, Labour still weren’t willing to compete realistically for a deal with the latter. When you compare this with Cameron and the Conservative party, who from the outset offered the Liberal Democrats a generous deal (including a referendum on electoral reform, which the LibDems wanted so badly) and a list of other concessions it is no wonder why Nick Clegg lead his party to a coalition with the Tories.
The highlight for me however was Peter Mandelson’s comment in the early stages of the programme regarding Cameron’s decision to offer the Liberal Democrats a coalition deal. He commented that, despite Brown and other Labour leaders claiming Cameron to have ‘shown great weakness’ and made a ‘strategic error’, Mandelson in fact thought that the move by Cameron was ‘quite impressive’.
For me, as a Tory throughout the election (and importantly a first-time Tory) I was always impressed by Cameron as the leader of the party. His ability in the House of Commons to debate the important issues that face this country and also, to change the image of the Conservatives which had suffered two landslide defeats at the polls into a party that could be trusted with your vote again is an inspiring performance. And one which I rewarded with my vote and continuing support for this coalition government.
What struck me about the programme was the arrogant nature of Labour’s conduct throughout the important 5 days. Ed Balls, a key negotiator for Labour and a current leadership candidate claimed that ‘Labour did not have plans for a coalition government’. Does this imply that they were expecting to lose the general election in May? They certainly shouldn’t have been expecting a win. What’s worse is that even after days of negotiation between the Torys and the Libdems, Labour still weren’t willing to compete realistically for a deal with the latter. When you compare this with Cameron and the Conservative party, who from the outset offered the Liberal Democrats a generous deal (including a referendum on electoral reform, which the LibDems wanted so badly) and a list of other concessions it is no wonder why Nick Clegg lead his party to a coalition with the Tories.
The highlight for me however was Peter Mandelson’s comment in the early stages of the programme regarding Cameron’s decision to offer the Liberal Democrats a coalition deal. He commented that, despite Brown and other Labour leaders claiming Cameron to have ‘shown great weakness’ and made a ‘strategic error’, Mandelson in fact thought that the move by Cameron was ‘quite impressive’.
For me, as a Tory throughout the election (and importantly a first-time Tory) I was always impressed by Cameron as the leader of the party. His ability in the House of Commons to debate the important issues that face this country and also, to change the image of the Conservatives which had suffered two landslide defeats at the polls into a party that could be trusted with your vote again is an inspiring performance. And one which I rewarded with my vote and continuing support for this coalition government.
Thursday, 29 July 2010
Cameron keen to encourage a new ‘special-relationship’ with booming India
Prime Minister David Cameron is in India this week with an impressive ‘entourage’ consisting of Foreign Secretary, William Hague, Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, plus business leaders totaling almost 100 on an official delegation. Following the Queen’s speech, it was clear that ministers for the coalition government recognise how ‘critical’ India is to their objectives and as the world’s second fastest growing economy, after China, it has become a priority of ‘ConLibs’ to enhance the existing relationship between the UK and India.
“What is wrong with our current special relationship with the US” I hear you ask? This government is set to change the focus of our foreign policy from the ‘American poodle’ approach of New Labour’s years which lead us into foolish wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on a ‘neoconservative’ whim to one with a business focus. As Dean Nelson comments in his ‘Telegraph Blog’, ‘when companies are in trouble at home, they explore new, “emerging markets” to grow… when whole states are in a pickle, they look for new “special relationships ”’ and this is exactly the reason for Cameron’s change in focus. And India could be the answer to this pickle. For example, when London’s capital market was looking sorry for itself, it was the Indian Essars of Ruia who came to the rescue with the city’s largest public offering in a long while . Furthermore, Britain’s richest man is Indian, Lakshmi Mittal, with a personal fortune of £22 billion and our biggest manufacturer is Tata, which owns Land Rover, Jaguar and Corus, and is controlled from Mumbai. Cameron is in India to highlight these links with the ‘jewel of the crown’ and encourage them to take us with them on their boom by allowing increased trade links and easing some of its barriers on foreign direct investment in service industries.
However, this ‘special relationship’ is not going to be as easy to create as Cameron or his cabinet members would like. The obvious question that will be on India’s mind is ‘what can a stronger friendship with Britain do for us’? India already boasts 26 relationships with nations around the world and has close economic ties with the US which have flourished since the lucrative billion-dollar civilian nuclear deal between George W Bush and Manmohan Singh. Cameron will need more than just talk of ‘the 300 hundred years of history’ between India and Britain and other similar clichés that have plagued the relations between the two nations.
One thing that is for sure is that this is the start of a new foreign policy outlook for Britain. While its focus will be business, for now, hopefully Britain is starting to realise that it is a nation with interests much wider than before. With an Indian community of more than 2 million, and a Muslim population which is ‘rising 10 times faster than the rest of society’ maybe it is time Britain pursued an international conduct that was more sensitive to its actual population, was more careful when following America’s often heavy-handed and clumsy approach to foreign policy.
“What is wrong with our current special relationship with the US” I hear you ask? This government is set to change the focus of our foreign policy from the ‘American poodle’ approach of New Labour’s years which lead us into foolish wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on a ‘neoconservative’ whim to one with a business focus. As Dean Nelson comments in his ‘Telegraph Blog’, ‘when companies are in trouble at home, they explore new, “emerging markets” to grow… when whole states are in a pickle, they look for new “special relationships ”’ and this is exactly the reason for Cameron’s change in focus. And India could be the answer to this pickle. For example, when London’s capital market was looking sorry for itself, it was the Indian Essars of Ruia who came to the rescue with the city’s largest public offering in a long while . Furthermore, Britain’s richest man is Indian, Lakshmi Mittal, with a personal fortune of £22 billion and our biggest manufacturer is Tata, which owns Land Rover, Jaguar and Corus, and is controlled from Mumbai. Cameron is in India to highlight these links with the ‘jewel of the crown’ and encourage them to take us with them on their boom by allowing increased trade links and easing some of its barriers on foreign direct investment in service industries.
However, this ‘special relationship’ is not going to be as easy to create as Cameron or his cabinet members would like. The obvious question that will be on India’s mind is ‘what can a stronger friendship with Britain do for us’? India already boasts 26 relationships with nations around the world and has close economic ties with the US which have flourished since the lucrative billion-dollar civilian nuclear deal between George W Bush and Manmohan Singh. Cameron will need more than just talk of ‘the 300 hundred years of history’ between India and Britain and other similar clichés that have plagued the relations between the two nations.
One thing that is for sure is that this is the start of a new foreign policy outlook for Britain. While its focus will be business, for now, hopefully Britain is starting to realise that it is a nation with interests much wider than before. With an Indian community of more than 2 million, and a Muslim population which is ‘rising 10 times faster than the rest of society’ maybe it is time Britain pursued an international conduct that was more sensitive to its actual population, was more careful when following America’s often heavy-handed and clumsy approach to foreign policy.
Monday, 26 July 2010
Apparently Labour are holding a leadership contest?
Scanning the headlines over the last week or so one may have come across more news of BP’s time in the hot seat; more cuts announced by the coalition government; or maybe you have heard that Sri Lanka’s King of Spin, Muttiah Muralitharan, reached 800 test wickets on the final day of his international career. The contest for Labour leadership, however, you may not have heard a thing about. Do not worry, you have not missed out.
Throughout this year’s general election, the main fighting ground was the economy and how each party would, if elected, address the deficit. The Conservatives called for cuts to be made immediately to address the largest deficit this country has ever had; the Liberal Democrats too saw the issue of the deficit and detailed their plan of dealing with it, although admittedly in a much less severe manner than the Tories. Labour, however, argued the need for more spending in order to secure the economic growth needed to move Britain out of the recession. In addition to this, Brown informed us that the deficit would be halved by 2014 – despite mentioning any credible way of achieving this. Needless to say, business leaders across the country ‘slammed’ their manifesto for its poor handling of the economic issues that faced this country, describing said manifesto as ‘meaningless’.
It is perhaps for this reason that the candidates for Labour leadership are less than inspiring. In order for the party to provide serious opposition to the coalition government, and make a firm challenge at the next general election, they must find a strong position on the issues that face the British people they represented for thirteen years and coin a convincing solution to what is, for the most part, their mess. Any candidate in this years Labour leadership contest must be honest about the debt, be honest about reigning in spending and be ruthless when tackling the question of what went wrong? There has, however, been no mention of the much needed ‘real change’ within the party as went on in the Conservative party following the 2005 general election. Iain Dale comments ‘none of the candidates have tried to think the unthinkable… most of them still act as if they are in government and as if the deficit hardly exists, and if it does, it is not their fault.’ When contrasted with the leadership contest held within the Tories, where new ideas were debated and a party showed its desire to ‘learn from the past and move on’, it shows Labour to have an arrogance which has no place in politics, particularly at this time.
Throughout this year’s general election, the main fighting ground was the economy and how each party would, if elected, address the deficit. The Conservatives called for cuts to be made immediately to address the largest deficit this country has ever had; the Liberal Democrats too saw the issue of the deficit and detailed their plan of dealing with it, although admittedly in a much less severe manner than the Tories. Labour, however, argued the need for more spending in order to secure the economic growth needed to move Britain out of the recession. In addition to this, Brown informed us that the deficit would be halved by 2014 – despite mentioning any credible way of achieving this. Needless to say, business leaders across the country ‘slammed’ their manifesto for its poor handling of the economic issues that faced this country, describing said manifesto as ‘meaningless’.
It is perhaps for this reason that the candidates for Labour leadership are less than inspiring. In order for the party to provide serious opposition to the coalition government, and make a firm challenge at the next general election, they must find a strong position on the issues that face the British people they represented for thirteen years and coin a convincing solution to what is, for the most part, their mess. Any candidate in this years Labour leadership contest must be honest about the debt, be honest about reigning in spending and be ruthless when tackling the question of what went wrong? There has, however, been no mention of the much needed ‘real change’ within the party as went on in the Conservative party following the 2005 general election. Iain Dale comments ‘none of the candidates have tried to think the unthinkable… most of them still act as if they are in government and as if the deficit hardly exists, and if it does, it is not their fault.’ When contrasted with the leadership contest held within the Tories, where new ideas were debated and a party showed its desire to ‘learn from the past and move on’, it shows Labour to have an arrogance which has no place in politics, particularly at this time.
Friday, 23 July 2010
My first; the cuts and the economy.
For my first post, I thought I would begin with a general piece about the current cuts being made by the coalition government, see what you think:
As the first waves of cuts are announced by the coalition government, the electorate is feeling the squeeze and understandably quivering in the expectation of more. The public sector fears job losses which are guaranteed, the NHS is to be controversially restructured, free bus-pass entitlement is set to be limited and students are likely to face rising tuition fees, amongst other changes. But as all of these, perhaps ‘drastic’ cuts, are detailed by the new government, it is important to remember why these cuts are necessary and why they must be made now.
The Labour government lead the country for twelve years and in which time managed to accumulate, on the nation’s behalf, a record debt of £903bn. As a percentage of GDP, this stands at 63%. While the worldwide recession is responsible for large amounts of this debt, it is worth looking at whether or not harmful economic policy has played a part, and at the extent of this harm. While the Labour party will continue to tell us of all the things it has done well the fact of the matter is, as Lord Myner – who was drafted in by the Labour government – asserts, “There is nothing progressive about a government that consistently spends more than it can raise in taxation and certainly nothing progressive that endows generations to come with the liabilities incurred with respect to the current generation." It would be great to be able to provide the health service with a blank cheque, create jobs for all those able and seeking work, no tuition fees and even a bus pass for all. But it is this policy which has flawed our economy and provided us with interest payments, per annum, which nearly equate to our allowance for spending on defence (£35 billion 2009). Brown during his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer assured us of the stability he would provide and the end to ‘boom and bust’; but this was overconfidence, and economic naivety on his part. The success of his first ten years, for the most part, was borrowed and simply ‘put off’ a recession like never seen before. The strength of our economy was an illusion created by the Labour party, an illusion shattered by the collapse of the mortgage market and Britain has been found wanting; ‘you only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out’.
The worst thing that could’ve happened is for Labour to have been re-elected, giving them chance to cover their tracks with regard to the appalling nature of their debt accumulation, until the point when this country was really on its knees. The labour party needs to tread carefully over the coming months as cuts are made, it would be a poor show if they were to criticise the parties who have volunteered to come and clean the mess that they, and only they, have left Britain with.
As the first waves of cuts are announced by the coalition government, the electorate is feeling the squeeze and understandably quivering in the expectation of more. The public sector fears job losses which are guaranteed, the NHS is to be controversially restructured, free bus-pass entitlement is set to be limited and students are likely to face rising tuition fees, amongst other changes. But as all of these, perhaps ‘drastic’ cuts, are detailed by the new government, it is important to remember why these cuts are necessary and why they must be made now.
The Labour government lead the country for twelve years and in which time managed to accumulate, on the nation’s behalf, a record debt of £903bn. As a percentage of GDP, this stands at 63%. While the worldwide recession is responsible for large amounts of this debt, it is worth looking at whether or not harmful economic policy has played a part, and at the extent of this harm. While the Labour party will continue to tell us of all the things it has done well the fact of the matter is, as Lord Myner – who was drafted in by the Labour government – asserts, “There is nothing progressive about a government that consistently spends more than it can raise in taxation and certainly nothing progressive that endows generations to come with the liabilities incurred with respect to the current generation." It would be great to be able to provide the health service with a blank cheque, create jobs for all those able and seeking work, no tuition fees and even a bus pass for all. But it is this policy which has flawed our economy and provided us with interest payments, per annum, which nearly equate to our allowance for spending on defence (£35 billion 2009). Brown during his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer assured us of the stability he would provide and the end to ‘boom and bust’; but this was overconfidence, and economic naivety on his part. The success of his first ten years, for the most part, was borrowed and simply ‘put off’ a recession like never seen before. The strength of our economy was an illusion created by the Labour party, an illusion shattered by the collapse of the mortgage market and Britain has been found wanting; ‘you only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out’.
The worst thing that could’ve happened is for Labour to have been re-elected, giving them chance to cover their tracks with regard to the appalling nature of their debt accumulation, until the point when this country was really on its knees. The labour party needs to tread carefully over the coming months as cuts are made, it would be a poor show if they were to criticise the parties who have volunteered to come and clean the mess that they, and only they, have left Britain with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)