The Great Competition?

So, here we are, in the big run up to a supposed May 6th General election and the Labour party are still desperately trying to claw in voters. Recently I read a rival blog, of whose I shall not reveal, on which the labour HQ's new campaign of pictorial Labour achievements was written about favourably. Basically, in this latest 'genius' idea (oh! how sarcasm does not work through the written word!), fans send photos of hospitals, schools and most likely benefit and job centres to HQ, who post them around like propaganda. Well, perhaps I shall create a photomontage just for their own benefit. It should include the following :-


- Hospitals desperately lacking in utilities and resources as wards are overstretched and bursting at the seams.

- Pictures of Wooten Bassett and British soldiers; the icons that have come to encapsulate British politics since 2001.

- A faultering education system; just the other day 3,000 students took an A-level exam that they had not been taught how to answer (yes, the fault lies with the exam boards, but how can this happen?!)

- An economy that has had 'equivalent of a major heart attack', to paraphrase Andrew Grice (The Independent) with a 0.1% growth rise, instead of the 0.5% originally expected. The 'Boom and Bust' Brown aimed to destroy could be back upon us later this year.

- Social services that are grossly ran by statistics and figures rather than realities; overwhelmed by paperwork and bureaucratic conformity. 1/3 of a sample 479 incidents last year were incorrectly filed by Police - most likely due to unachievable targets.

- Whilst services are on my mind, why not throw in some pictures of lavish and luxury items and houses  of M.P's, paid for by tax payers; of which the Labour party was complacent in noticing and dealing with.



Now I know, I could go on. And I know that if I did, I would only make people shrug and nod. I also understand that a lot of things were not necessarily directly caused by a Labour government. However, since 1997, Labour have had ample opportunity to right wrongs and prevent catastrophes and perhaps even negate the harsh effects of the recession. But who knows? What is done is done, and what is certain is that someone must fix these things. Its all very well saying 'we did this, oh remember that...' but this is a time in which we need to move forward at rapid pace. Just like a victim of a heart attack; you wouldn't look back to the times when you felt certain something was going to go wrong, would you?

The Iraq Inquiry: All's fair... in politics and law?

Whilst sitting at a table in Starbuck's today, reading today's Independent, the phrase 'all is fair, in love and war' suddenly came to mind as I briefly glanced at the day's news. Though perhaps what I was really thinking was: how does this principle apply to the Iraq Inquiry. So, today Lord Goldsmith went up against the panel, discussing his part in the ever-unfolding story of invasion. Yesterday, Michael Wood, a senior legal adviser to Tony Blair exclaimed that he had felt that invasion was 'contrary to International law'; today Lord Goldsmith (ex-Attorney General to Blair) insisted that the military had asked for a 'yes or no' definitive answer to the legality of military action against Iraq as he swiftly changed his stance. The whole inquiry is in danger of falling towards a contest of absolution of responsibility. What will Tony be saying on Friday, who will he blame? Civil servants and their advice to the government at the time has got to be one of the main areas that he will try to use in his defence. If Goldsmith had given the legal go-ahead, then it was within the mandate of the Prime Minister to authorise such use of force - perhaps even if misinformed by an advisor. However, this ultimately throws into question the transparency of Blair's leadership, should it have relied upon false information and ill-defined legal advice. Of course there are grey areas and aspects of EU law that can be overlooked due to some more ambiguous clauses that can be sidestepped, however, one would not expect a nation like Great Britain to have to find reasons to invade a country and mobilise an army - it should be clear that when we need to exercise these powers, it be with the utmost inevitability and reasoning. I think the inquiry looks to piece together the circumstances through which we went to war, and its status as a panel of non-judicial examiners and lack of any real legal clout will prove to be a great issue in emphasising the relevance of such an inquiry.

Brown targets middle classes? Actually, he's been 'targetting' the middle classes for quite a while already.

So, in the latest franchise rebranding project; 'New' Labour targets the middle classes with Brown declaring more middle class jobs than ever before". Well, hang on just a minute, Mr Brown. Some of us are not so complacent as to think you can spin this one just ahead of a General Election. For middle classes, your party created 111 new taxes, and unprecedented national insurance increases. And now you try to tell us middle classes that you are the mainstreamers who seek to look after us as well as the working and upper classes? Unfortunately, after you raised higher income taxes alongside Mr Darling to 52%, what are we supposed to think! It is true that people are indeed holding their voting cards very close to their chests ahead of this election; most likely due to the still turbulent attitudes towards British politics and the general feeling that the voters will be deciding who will win this election; not political parties and pressure groups.

The 'C' Word

Why do people get worked up when you admit that you are a Conservative voter? Is it because of old cliches and false rumours or is it because people are caught; ensnared by the old Labour 'up the worker' mentality? I feel that I should at least attempt to unravel some of these myths before they begin to affect voting ahead of the General Election in the coming summer months. Firstly, 'up the worker' is not a mentality solely supported by the Labour party, contrary to what their spin machine and propaganda might insinuate. Every governmental party believes in the safety and welfare of the working man, or woman, and the subsequent safety of their careers and lifelihoods. Without this crucial factor, our country simply couldn't exist. Contrary to what those harsh and outdated Labourites might have us believe, we all support the worker. I suppose, upon reflection the 'up the worker' phrase in itself, is too vague, too weak to warrant further understanding - the fact is, every person, and their mother, is most likely a worker of some description. The phrase, when used, indicates to me that the Labour party are lacking in votes and popularity and try to use the old unionist beliefs to claw back some kind of voting percentage. Yes of course, the well-informed Labourite will target the Conservative dealings with the unions in the 80's as a pretext to all of this. However, I sometimes find myself explaining the model of capitalism to those who are somewhat perplexed over why some earn more than others. It is simple really, in a capitalist model of government and society, both the higher earners and the lower earners co-exist by turn of mutual prosperity. Yes, so the higher earners might want to spend more on a huge house, or a larger car, but they are taxed accordingly for the amount these factors affect the population. For instance, if you have a bigger car, expect to pay more tax, due to the larger effect this will have on the environment via carbon dioxide emissions. The lower earners do not live in abject poverty either; some may choose to invest money in more practical options, such as saving accounts for their kids, or possibly an extension to their home - but the choice is theirs, and theirs alone, such is the nature of capitalist democracy. There is nothing to say that those born into lower income families cannot achieve the wage of a higher earner through promotion and their own merit; although these things do not come without achievements within a company or business. Anything can be accomplished in a free society.

What is often a larger myth about the Conservative party, is that they only accept into their ranks, elitist politicians who enter the party through a wrongly labelled public school like Eton: known as the 'nurse to Englands politicans'. William Hague did not attend Eton, and was in comprehensive schooling throughout his childhood; rising to the post of leader of the opposition through his own intellect and ability, rather than fast tracking through the system. It is true that in the past, convention has dictated who could rise through the ranks, a ceiling was imposed on those who did not have such 'crucial' schooling. Well, it may be news for some, but the times have changed, people from all walks of life, all backgrounds can enter politics in pursuit of making a difference. And this is perfectly feasible. There is no divide, and the sooner that certain misinformed traditionalists realise this, the closer we will be towards a democracy where people vote for what they really believe should be done, instead of playing party faithful to a party that may not be what it was, and may not stand for what people truly stand for. The north doesn't have to vote red in favour of the worker, and the south does not have to vote blue in turn, this election will be about the views of the individual, so we must vote accordingly.

The Bealsburg Address (The Art Of The Live Debate)

In 1863, Abraham Lincoln wrote and delivered what was to become one of the most revered speeches of all time.  In the aftermath of Civil war and the division of the Northern and Southern states in both ideological conflict and cultural contast; Lincoln made a speech on behalf of every American. Whilst researching the speech (I am currently examining American presidential speeches), I figured out where the problems inside our own political system stem from. The thing is, whilst realising this, I also realised why I currently favour modern American politics to those of our own. British politics are steeped in tradition, in convention and in elitism; and I don't think it is at all indicative of the changing environment in global politics - we need change before our government collapses and combusts from within - we need to adapt and modernise quickly.

We are now more open than ever before, we are not tolerant of political coverups and the Machiavellian back stabbing and the dominance of the current government over media and news; the new media has afforded us such freedoms of information. The British people are choosing a different type of political understanding and practise. It is time for the British people to embrace a new kind of politics, one of which recent events have encouraged us to develop. Now we must concentrate on the heart of the matter, the very bane of politics itself - what do we want for our country and its people? This is real twenty-first century politics. Mistrust and skepticism surrounds our M.P's, as a rising tide of discontent engulfs the public; caught between the ever impending consequences of the recession and lack of faith in not only the people, but the very system behind our method of government. People vote for dangerous parties in order to prove that they still hold the power of the electorate - yet in doing so, they further the efforts of those our society frowns upon. These are the holders of misplaced and radical views - those that look to dismantle and deconstruct our society, a society that our troops enter warzones and arenas of tyranny and oppression to maintain and defend. Voting for these parties is not the answer, voting for these parties does not endorse diversity or change, rather, it inhibits it.

For the first time in these British politics, our politicians will stand the test that their American counterparts have traversed for years. The power of the televised debate will unhinge those who lack strong morals, who are unsure of what they stand for. Of course, politicians debate in the house of Commons almost every day but this is not the same. Restricted by outdated and over regimented implementations and regulations - the bigger issue is never discussed; as Mr. Speaker oversees the content of the debate - and holds the tongues of those who seek to challenge tradition. Now, through the freedom of television provided by an independent network, we can finally confront the real issues. The concerns that both unite and divide society; and previously stood unchallenged in debate will now be freely articulated as points of great interest by politicians who aim to preach their beliefs and abilities to the public rather than expect their vote through necessity - the dominance of the major parties.

Let us not forget who the most important party is. We, the voters are the most important party in politics. We affect the vote, it is our concerns that become those of the politician and in turn, the prerogative will always be ours to choose who we feel will be the best representative to our own individual concerns. The televised debates may well shake off the recent stigma associated with British politics due to the expenses scandal, yet the real questions will remain, who will be the best performers, who will have the greatest ability to present the public with what they need to hear, and finally, who will deliver what they promised? It is one thing to make a written statement, but the words spoken infront of opposition candidates can not be easily repealed. Hopefully, opposing candidates will probe and seek to understand the feasible ways in which their opponents claims can be made realities and future enacted policies - if these fall to major scrutiny, the public will decide based upon that.

2010: A Political Odyssey

Another year beckons as we exit 2009 with relative ease; perhaps looking to 2010 to provide us with new found hope, increased confidence in our position as a world-leading country, and maybe, just maybe, the prospect of change in British politics. Though it is not solely a change in politics, but rather a change in the public's attitude towards it that is what is most needed in order to salvage some good from all of this rocky and turbulent ride in politics we have all been a party to throughout 2009. After the whimsical, irresponsible and largely inert responses of the Labour Party to some of the most pressing matters of our times; who can blame us? To lose faith in something that is so ingrained in each and every one of our lives on a daily basis, is dangerous. The expenses scandal and its' subsequential effects on the British public and, to some extent, the image of British politics that will now be carried by foreign politicians the world over will not be easily reversible(I could just as easily write 'scandals', but I believe the whole topic needs to be looked upon as gross misconduct within the paradigm of politicians, rather than individual cases).

Of course, we still have the war(s) in Iraq and Afghanistan; for this, readers should delete where applicable the aforementioned 's', as it could be argued that the media coverage of both of these conflicts conjures images of Wooton Bassett and British flags draped over ceremonial coffins - the final resting places of 108 soldiers this year: these conflicts do not seem like wars, but rather appear as isolated incidents in which British soldiers perish each day. We rarely hear of successes in these danger-zones, where our soldiers have trained and professionalised what are best described as militia into an organised and reputable law-enforcement service. And don't forget our efforts as a nation battling climate change in 2009 at Copenhagen. 190 countries signed the agreement; with China agreeing to steeply decrease its greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade. However, the summit raised questions over the timescale to which nations would have to declare their emissions as in keeping with the terms of the treaty - Ed Miliband's anxious comments over China's 'hijacking' of the Treaty, and claims over the Summit potentially becoming a 'farce' raised concerns that the summit was a media  gratifying stunt rather than a real climate change initiative. Thus more must be done in order to secure and hold in place a lasting agreement, which is more specifically tailored to suit the needs of each country that is a part of the summit, rather than a one-size-fits-all promise to reduce emissions by 50% by 2050: the original proposal of the summit before a last minute repeal which saw each countries pledge written into the appendices of the document after the summit itself. Promises should be made and negotiated on the table, with real results being promised by  member nations in front of others; hopefully spurring less confident nations on to commit to similar efforts to decrease their outputs on a definite timescale. The summit should be a pivotal meeting, both politically and historically and should finalise with a landmark mutual global agreement brokered between the leading countries of the world.

And then, by far the worst crisis of 2009: the great economic recession. In American history classes, I'd often wondered how it would feel to live in the midst of an economic downturn - this, unfortunately became a reality, as word of 'banking bail-outs' and rising unemployment reached those of us largely unconcerned with how banking and financial speculation was to conduct itself: were such things usual, was this not the usual way in which the 'Fleet street' operators worked? As people rose up angrily in protest outside the banks in central London; I felt the resentment as all manner of people called for resignations and cut bonuses, at the time it felt as if capitalism was itself being threatened. In any event, was there enough being done to counter all of this? Well, we saw the VAT rate fall to 15%. Did this really make any difference to us? Of course things became cheaper for the average consumer at first; I expect most people felt like they were making back 2.5%, what a way to make people feel like they were getting a return on their purchases. The more shrewd of us realised that this missing 2.5% was inevitably going to reappear somewhere else; and sure enough it has. The 49% 50% 52% tax rate that Alistair Darling has slapped onto those 'higher earners' with an income of £150k per year will no doubt see to paying off the 11 billion deficit caused by VAT reduction. A friend of mine speculated that we would have to 'spend our way out of this mess'. Of course, this is a reasonable judgement, the marketplace needs confidence at times like these. It would not be surprising to hear that a lot of people took money out of their own banks and hid it under their own beds in order to stamp their own kind of 'confidence' on their money; and when the banks decide that it is time to cease lending money, who can blame them. In such a very finely tuned and delicate system, things must be offset and balanced. As such, it is no surprise that we see prices rising higher on essential everyday items, however, with so many people's jobs sitting on tender-hooks, some found this pinch indicative of a failure in government in response to the crisis. 

So, enough reminiscing, is it too late to make a change? With a probable general election upon the not-so-distant horizon in May, we have the chance to bring the Government to account for its evident lack of reactionary response to such crises as the recession and conflicts in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Vote, make a difference and give us all the chance to experience something new: real people listening and reacting to real issues. Of course as the Labour party quickly and vainly try to change the flag hanging above the mast of H.M.S. Gordon Brown (two brave seamen hang from the bow at present, trying to repaint the ships name to what they do not themselves know - fellow crewmen could not decide...) we are forced to ask ourselves, how low will they stoop before they float into the harbour too late in a small dingy, the vast majority of crew lost at sea.