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.
Wednesday, 18 August 2010
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’.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)