Politics Student | Political opinion from students and young professionals

How investment in high speed broadband can bring economic growth

2012-05-11T14:33:00.013+01:00

Most people would agree that broadband internet access has already revolutionised the way that people live and work, at least for those with access to a decent connection. For residential customers there are already a host of different providers out there. Some of these suppliers encourage customers to take a broadband connection as part of wider entertainment package – one of the most obvious examples of this can be found at Sky (check out the website for their latest broadband deals). Bundling together an entertainment package around a broadband connection may well have been the first introduction for many to the possibilities opened up by having reasonably swift access to the internet.

However, the story of broadband service provision so far represents just a fraction of the possible avenues for creating economic growth through high speed internet access, but achieving these high speeds is going to require significant investment. In parts of the UK the existing telephone network is not fit for purpose when it comes to supplying fast broadband, particularly for those who do not live in major cities. The leading advisory group to the government in this area, the Broadband Stakeholder Group (BSG), is made up of private sector businesses such as telecoms operators, manufacturers and investors, as well as government representatives. The BSG is tasked with creating policy that will lead to the investment required to roll out super fast broadband across the country – to find out more about the BSG take a look at broadbanduk.org. But with the cost of this upgrade counted in the billions, rather than millions, just what form are the returns on this investment likely to take?

One could expect the economic boost will largely be felt by those businesses based in rural areas. To take just one example, any business with a decent broadband connection will be able to take advantage of the simple but effective technology of VoIP (voice over internet protocol). As the name suggests, VoIP provides businesses with an alternative to the traditional telephone network by digitising analogue sound and providing a format that can be transmitted over the internet. This can effectively provide free phone calls to anyone with the right software and an internet connection, and also offers several flexible ways for employees to make and receive calls from different locations while using the same business phone number. Additionally, software can be used to manage multiple calls efficiently in a much less expensive way than setting up a traditional, telephone based call centre.

VoIP is just one example of an existing technological and economic benefit made possible by increased broadband connection speed, and many more such advantages will become evident as technology develops over time. What is certain is that for these benefits to actually materialise, super fast broadband needs to be universal, as with piecemeal provision both the business and customer ends of future e-commerce will be too small to provide the potential revenue needed to drive forward innovation.

NuPolitics Magazine out now!

2012-03-23T20:22:00.018Z

NuPolitics is an exciting new comment magazine focussing on current affairs and politics written by and for students and young people. The magazine, produced in association with Politics Student, aims to encourage political engagement and promote young journalism.

The project, partly funded by the Three Faiths Forum and the University of Nottingham School of Politics and International Relations, also has the support of Mark Spencer MP who wrote a foreword for the inaugural issue. Mark writes: “Particularly exciting is the number of young people who come down to Westminster with a taste for politics and it’s something I’m keen to promote” a sentiment which strikes to the core of NuPolitics.

In a magazine which will have a national audience of students, young professionals and graduates, there are opinion pieces on the Olympic legacy, the current state of British politics and a review of ‘The Iron Lady’ in addition to articles from the leaders of the youth wings of both the Labour and Conservative parties. There is also an interesting feature on a number of young Twitter politicos, which is focused on today’s social media-orientated generation. Finally, Dr Ros Hague tries to answer that age old question posed to students of politics: so, you want to be Prime Minister?

Read the magazine for free at www.facebook.com/nupolitics

Pish, Politicians and the Press

2012-01-07T21:38:00.007Z

Our modern day politics is corrupted by spin, lies and deceit, writes James Smyth.

Occasionally, the nice, sane and moderate people of the world get riled about something. Often, their reasoned anger is directed at certain aspects of society which steer us away from living in the sort of world we could be dwelling in, if only everyone could get along like these nice, sane and moderate people I speak of. I guess one whole group of the few things that get nice people rather annoyed (I wouldn't pretend to know for sure, as I still don't know whether I should be so self- assured as to class myself with these guys) are the various ranty, bombastic, overly-opinionated, self-righteous newspapers and blogs which, because of the ever expanding internet and television networks, make up a worryingly large part of our collective psyche.

I hope this doesn't sound too self-absorbed, but it's been troubling me for a while. In 2011, I pushed myself into the world of politics. I got elected to the Scottish Youth Parliament, and also started out as an activist for a political party. I've always been pretty interested in politics - which is a statement I tend to shy away from now, as I've realised how much it annoys me when I hear other people say it. But I have always been interested, let's just admit it. Interested in the potential to change things, inspired by the belief that a better world is possible with the right pieces of legislation - or, in some cases, the right pieces of legislation being loosened or removed - and the correct conditioning and educating of society - which sounds very ominous. But I mean well, don't I. As a consequence, I've met a lot of very political people over the last year. I've had a lot of nerdy debates and I've expelled a lot of passion. (Look at older articles that I've posted and you'll see a whole load of self-righteous opinion, putting the world to rights as though I could do a much better and more professional job myself. The tell-tale signs of how immature and unprofessional I was, or am, are also there, nullifying all of my points. I voluntarily opened myself up to ridicule. Bad spelling, bad grammar, boring, uncreative ways of expressing things. Long, possibly made up words. In fact, just keep reading this.) But I've also discovered that the sort of people I once almost worshipped, looked up to and wanted to work with, get a lot of their knowledge from rather shaky sources, just like the general public do. It's just better organised in their heads, and much more harshly articulated and set out in arguments. I'm not talking about top politicians: Ministers, Secretaries of State, seasoned and professional MPs and MSPs. I still can't work out what goes on in their heads. I'm talking about people who, like I once did, aspire to take the place of them. Young activists who think they know it all, the 'young politicians' who the media love to talk about. The young people who, if you were paying attention, took up the seats of MPs in the House of Commons one day in November last year. I was there. We are heralded as the leaders of our generation; the politicians of tomorrow.

We all think we'd do better than the current lot. Naturally. At the moment, politicians are looked upon as the scum of the earth; heroes who are paid and pampered as such, but who have done nothing whatsoever heroic - unless you count as heroic the amount of corruption they pedalled for so many years without any of us catching a sniff of it. We have to believe we'd do better. We wouldn't have forced our way into the game otherwise. But what I've seen, among various shards of light who buck the trend (although there aren't a lot of them), is actually quite depressing. What I see is a hierarchy in youth politics. I see the majority of young activists, without party affiliations, stripped of the influence they should have been given when they made the decision to stand up for their generation by joining an organisation which does such. And I see the minority who have joined a party, giving themselves almost all the power. So the influence in our generation, a generation thought to be very different to preceding ones, sits with the people who have already decided on a pre-set ideology to follow. People who are very interested in the sort of party-politics which ruins democracy, which is at least disliked and at most despised by non-partisan people.

You may have realised I've gone rather off-topic, and probably that I've said a lot of irrelevant and, in some cases, contentious things which I didn't need to say in this post. So let me drag us back. How do these newspapers and blogs I was on about, fit into this? Well, like political parties, they tend to spin facts in favour of a particular ideology. They select, twist, simplify and amplify aspects of any impartial information which they come upon.

In the late 90s, Birmingham City Council organised a festival called 'Winterval'. It comprised of various Christmas themed, secular and other events happening in late November and the duration of December, the aim being to encourage people into the rejuvenated city centre. The Daily Mail, notorious for its alarmist right-wing stance on many issues, picked up on this, selected a few facts from the variety which made up the truth, twisted them, and then amplified them in its simplified, vitriolic tone. It claimed that 'Winterval' was part of a scheme to eradicate Christian culture from Britain. A way of appeasing Islam. They said that in some parts of the country the term had 'replaced' Christmas. A conspiracy by the liberal elites, using the scapegoat of offended minorities to excuse their aims. And so the public who read it in most cases believed it; too busy to hunt for the real, unbiased facts. The Daily Mail likes to pedal rumours of minorities being offended by Christmas, and other aspects of Western culture. The growth of the phrase 'Happy Holidays' as a replacement for 'Merry Christmas' is oft-used to back up this claim. I think that's more down to businesses who want to get in all our purses around the festive period, and not just those of native westerners. But that's another rant, for another day filled with nothingness. The thinly veiled Islamophobia that is spouted by the Daily Mail and other such publications - The Daily Star (98% of whose readership apparently support the EDL) for example - can sometimes create the sort of hysteria within a person which will result in one of those Facebook rumours, telling offended minorities to 'leave our country' if they don't agree with Christmas, or don't like poppies or something.

The aim of the Daily Mail and Daily Star is primarily, I think, to sell papers, not to run a knife through society. But I don't doubt that a genuine dislike and suspicion of minorities lurks in there somewhere. To quote Humza Yousaf, an MSP from Glasgow, "[I've] never met a Muslim who is offended by Christmas - met plenty who are offended by the Daily Mail though!"

It's not just the Right I'm on about though. Often, on shows like 'Have I Got News For You', laughter is provoked at the expense of the ridiculous and hysterical right-wing papers, and the equally ridiculous and hysterical left-wing press gets let off the hook. This left-wing press, with some exceptions which include parts of The Guardian and The Morning Star, tends more to come in the form of blogs, websites and even internet virals. I suppose we could now start classing Facebook and Twitter among news websites, spontaneous, people-driven news, as that is one of their many functions. Jeremy Clarkson's infamous joke about the November public sector strikes provides good examples of this. I'm probably one of the only pro-environment, pro-trade unions, gay, left-wing people who watch and enjoy Top Gear. I am ready for the occasional offending remark which comes out of Clarkson's mouth. But I was just as taken aback as many other people were, when I saw an image come up on my news feed depicting Clarkson's face beside the quote "I think all public sector strikers should be taken out and shot in front of their families". I soon discovered - because I have the time to find out - that this quote had been taken completely out of context, and that he had essentially been making a joke about the fact that he couldn't be biased while on a BBC programme. Again, the theme is constant: Select, twist, simplify and amplify - this time through social media instead of well-selling papers - although they picked up on it the next day. It wasn't a very funny joke, and it was pretty ill-judged, but it was a joke all the same. And while Clarkson does lean somewhat to the right, having read his books, execution of strikers is clearly not one of the things he espouses. The full clip, including the bit where he says how much he liked the strikes, has been played a lot on the BBC since the original broadcast, if for no other reason than to try and clear his name and defend themselves from the ranting, hate-filled, vitriolic, bloodthirsty press. Not the right-wing press though; this time it was the wishy-washy left-wingers. And he is nominated for the 'Dick of the Year' award on the Scottish lefty-green blog Bright Green. The nomination letter for him is just as stupid, illogical and personally insulting, if not worse, than what you'd expect to find in the Daily Mail. 'Bright', my arse.

In an immature way, I used to think that the left-wing was the home of the nice, compassionate, thoughtful people. It seems not. It's a lot more complicated than that. Elements of left, right, authoritarian and libertarian blur and mix together all the time. In my eyes, people in the world are divided into a different set of adjectives: Nice, nasty, intelligent and stupid. To work out which of these words corresponds to each of the first four would cause such disagreement that I can never see the human race destined for any kind of peace.

I feel this article is far too long, and I should probably wind it up, snip it in two and write one article about press vitriol and another about the confidence in the next generation of politicians which is currently haemorrhaging from me. Or maybe I should get a life and do neither. But I refuse not to say that these two things are connected. Right now, politicians are wondering whether to implement better regulation of the tabloid press, because of the phone hacking scandal. But the regulation would only affect how newspapers can invade privacy; it wouldn't affect how they preach such hatred against people, movements and parts of society. It wouldn't affect their ability to twist facts, apply huge levels of bias and print downright lies. Do you see the connection? They do very similar things to what political parties and individual, ideology worshipping politicians do. They take the pure facts and they play around and manipulate them until they can use them to justify some law, some spending cut or 'reorganising', some order to push people around, or whatever they want to do which fits in with the world view that they've decided, or have been told, is more important and correct than anyone else's. They go further than just doing the same things though, it's well documented that they work in conjunction with each other to keep the big lie spinning. If newspapers are to be regulated in order to stop the lies and the spin, politicians must first stop benefiting so much from those lies and that spin, and that's never going to happen. And even then, such regulation of newspapers and blogs (which, remember, are on the sacred internet), would be totally immoral and completely against freedom of expression - as much as freedom itself is done away with by the indoctrination which stems from these papers, parties and other media.

If this generation - my generation - is to change anything at all in any meaningful way; if we are to really live up to the potential that we have, we cannot be represented by people who tie themselves to the ideas of old. The world needs independent thinking. We need scepticism of the current system - not just from people who aim to go into politics, but from the wider, conscious public too. It needs people with a real drive to change things, in whatever way that may be, who don't fear the wrath of powerful columnists with clawing hands and shouting, foaming mouths. It was summed up by a woman who works in the youth wing of my local council, while she was giving me a lift in her car once.

"A lot of things need to change in this country."

Forget manifestos. That's the only idea you need to cling onto, to make a political career worthwhile.

James Smyth

Up Eurs Merkel: Why Cameron Was Right

2011-12-12T11:52:00.003Z

Germany and France might be in denial about the flaws of the Eurozone but we are definitely not. Cameron was right to do what he did, writes Jonathan Gillespie.

No one can accuse The Sun of not being environmentally friendly. It seems that the front cover of their Saturday (10/12/12) issue has given a few people a sense of Déjà Vu, being fairly reminiscent of the 1990 headline “Up Yours Delors”. This article was about a certain European advocating an EU Central Government (Delors that is, not Merkel). A week ago Saturday, (3/12/12) Delors – the man the article pertained to – who was instrumental in building the Euro and the single Currency, came out and said that the 'Euro was flawed from the beginning' and that Merkel’s and other European leader’s efforts now were ‘too little, too late’.

Now, the left seem to be big fans of Europe. Why shouldn’t they: its ability to bring equality across Europe, not put power into the hands of certain individuals (or nations), not allow certain nations to take advantage of other nations. But, are we quite sure it has (or hasn’t) done just that? We’ll take the country that has been at the centre of all this controversy as an example: Greece. Well, Wikipedia has a lovely little graph which shows us GDP Growth of Greece from 1961, and here we can ascertain quite a few points. Firstly, GDP growth peaked through the 60s, meaning that its development has stinted since, and secondly, that the average percentage (or, if you like, average of the annual percentage) pre-Eurozone was around 7% of GDP per annum, whereas after their joining of the Eurozone was around 3% (again average percentage of percentage). This clearly shows a downtrend after the joining of the Eurozone, and furthermore, the the 70s and 80s were pretty poor for Grecian growth as it was badly hit by the 70s recession.

Having a brief glance at this graph on Italian GDP Growth you can see a downwards trend post 2002 when the nation adopted the Euro as its official form of currency. You can see that from 1990 to 2000 the trend was slowly increasing and after accepting the Euro the trend decreased considerably, even though this was a period of greater economic prosperity than the decade before when Italy had been progressing well. In both cases there is no definitive evidence that the Eurozone has helped these two nations prosper, and in fact the evidence shows the Eurozone has hindered their progress.

There are many reasons for this, firstly interest and inflation rates are set by Germans, who will probably not (why would you?) set them so that development of smaller countries is as high as it can be. Interest Rates and Inflation are targeted for Germany and France and the richer nations. This means that nations which are wishing to develop and expand rapidly find it harder to do so, and is why the only way in which the smaller nations in Europe will benefit from the Eurozone would be for a single Government running Europe, collecting in taxes and spreading them out so as to target poorer areas (and subsequently poorer nations). The left must face the fact that the Eurozone is harming and hindering smaller nations in Europe and is not helping them progress. It is not (I repeat, not) beneficial to Greece, and Greece should be allowed to go bankrupt and exit the Eurozone so as to set up its own economy. Two years ago the same thing happened, how many more times does it have to happen?

Now, because there isn’t much evidence to support the Euro anymore (other than if you’re arguing we should have a One-Europe State), the left has condemned Cameron’s decision to veto a possible treaty (and/or ratification) through flimsy arguments about how it isn’t best for Europe or the UK. When it comes to the left stating that Britain is isolated, well to believe we are now more isolated than before is odd and rather poor: how can you be more isolated than, practically, complete isolation itself? Sarkozy did say it himself that “[the UK] say you hate the euro and now you want to interfere in our meetings”. It is regrettable – or not so, depending on how you look at it – that Europe clearly doesn’t want the UK anymore than the UK wants Europe. It is quite plain and simple that we cannot, with any attempt whatsoever, integrate with Europe and the Euro without full out pledging to join it (which itself probably would be looked upon with distain by our dear old friend Monsieur Sarkozy). I believe that Terry Smith put it brilliantly when he said: “[we are] as isolated as someone left on the dock in Southampton as the Titanic sailed away”. Good riddance.

I will leave it to the Spectator to describe how poor the argument is that we are pandering to London; “Financial services accounted for a £35bn trade surplus last year — one of the few sectors that generated a surplus, as well almost 2 million jobs and it contributed £54bn in taxes.” We should be honest: London is the basis of our economy and any attack on its strength is an attack on our whole nation’s economic strength. It is the financial capital of the world and London should never be put in jeopardy of its status. Why should we risk London’s status for the benefit of Europe; especially when we have proven that it doesn’t help the smaller nations of Europe.

We as a nation do not want Europe. We don’t like Europe. Joining the Euro would be met with protest that might just equal Poll Tax Riots. Of course, no one would do this, but from Sarkozy’s own mouth it seems that it would be the only way we can be “good pals” with Europe. Furthermore, the Euro is a travesty (as described by its builder himself) and does nothing for – or more probably has hindered – the smaller nations of Europe. The Euro is dead. It’s not an if. There are no buts. It is a question of when and how. Germany and France might be in self denial about its flaws and the question of its survival (although maybe not, as Germany has supposedly been printing Deutche Mark) but we are definitely not. Cameron was right to do what he did, nearly everyone agrees with him. We now must sit and wait to see what happens.

Jonathan Gillespie

What do you think? Comment below or Become a Contributor and have your own articles published

Earn money completing surveys - Join YouGov

Public sector pensions must be curbed, there is no choice

2011-11-30T10:30:00.004Z

Later today up to 2 million public sector workers are planning to go on strike over changes to pay and pensions. These strikes are politically motivated, ill-thought out and will only aggravate a bad situation, writes Alexander Crossley.

On 30th November there will be a national walkout by members of virtually every union which represents public sector workers. Up to 2 million people are expected to fail to turn up to work, in protest at changes to their pensions. But they have nothing to protest about, their pensions are still among the best available and are certainly better than those that can be expected in the private sector; which does after all pay the bill.

Public sector pensions are more lucrative than their private sector counterparts. Whilst final salary pension schemes have been closed to most new employees, existing employees retain them. Such schemes are now virtually non-existent in the private sector amongst both new and existing employees because of the fact that they are fundamentally unsustainable. What's more, public sector pensions enjoy index-linked and guaranteed provision status, meaning they are protected against erosion by inflation and a guaranteed sum will be paid upon retirement. Private pensions enjoy no such protection, but are at the mercy of international stock markets. Many private pension holders have seen their pots vanish during the recent economic turmoil and are left wondering what the public sector is crying about.

There is no precise figure for the government pension liability, but estimates range from £650bn to over £1tn. This liability will have to be paid, yet doesn't appear as official government debt. According to figures from the Guardian, the pension pot of a teacher or policeman can range from £350,000 to £500,000 and who pays the bulk of that sum? The taxpayer. Larger public pensions mean increased taxation to pay for them, higher tax means less money in the hands of private individuals to spend and therefore lower and less efficient economic growth.

Whilst there were reforms to pensions under the last Labour government, they didn't go nearly far enough to stop the spiralling deficit they are causing. Under the current proposals, amongst other things, the pensionable age will increase to 67 (primarily due to rising life expectancy) and employee contributions will increase. These changes may seem harsh but they are also necessary. The simple fact is that the pension deals in place currently weren't designed for a workforce who would live to their late 70's and above. I take no pleasure in enforcing change on the financial and retirement plants of millions of civil servants, but there simply is no choice. The public purse cannot increase contributions without boosting the ever expanding national debt which would eventually sink the economy, rendering any debate about contribution levels redundant. John Longworth, of the British Chambers of Commerce said: "Trade unions are living in a bubble and ignoring the fact that Britain has to make its way in a competitive world."

Ministers offered trade union leaders a final deal, protecting the lowest paid and those within 10 years of retirement, yet the deal was rejected almost instantly without most unions bothering to re-poll their members. Under the deal, some of the lowest paid workers would in fact be better off financially. For instance, according to government sources, someone earning £14,600 a year would see a rise in their pension from £9,300 per annum to £11,900. This final deal is going to cost £50bn, hardly an insignificant sum.

I realise that bad feeling towards the government within the public sector is not just limited to pension reforms, as significant as they may be. Another 2 year 1% pay rise cap on public sector workers has just been announced, on top of the 2 year pay freeze that is coming to an end. Incomes are being squeezed, but again this is precisely the pain that the private sector has been feeling since 2008. The budget deficit of this country has to be brought under control if we are to retain some measure of economic stability. Our record low interest rates and ability to borrow at a fraction of the cost of other European states places us in a better position than most to weather the current storm. Public sector employees may like to think they're immune from financial reality, but they are not, and they should not enjoy luxuries over the private sector.

The medicine needed to ensure our economic competency may be painful for those working in the public sector, but it is necessary. Even Labour politicians know this to be true. Ed Miliband and his team have been reluctant to support the strikes because almost 90% of their funding is courtesy of the unions, yet their spending plans are not so different. Unions are bent on strikes to embarrass the government and attempt to force a return to big government spending, but they are as usual living in a fantasy world. These strikes are, as much as anything, political.

In the word's of ex-Treasury Secretary Liam Byrne, “there's no money left”. If changes aren't made to the public sector to bring costs under control, then this country will go bust and all the workers striking today won't have a job to return to.

Alexander Crossley is currently studying Politics & Parliamentary Studies at the University of Leeds

What do you think? Comment below or Become a Contributor and have your own articles published

18 years later: Stephen Lawrence

2011-11-25T10:03:00.003Z

18 years ago Stephen Lawrence was murdered in cold blood in a racial attack on the streets of London, writes Vimla Appadoo.

The repercussions of this resulted in the outing of racial discrimination within the Metropolitan Police institution. 18 years later and two men have been charged with his murder. 3 months ago Mark Duggan was shot dead in London in an event that sparked off the London riots.

The night of his death Lawrence and his friend were heard by witnesses to be running away from something. It was eventually found out that they were running from Lawrence’s murders. They had stabbed him twice and he collapsed, two witnesses saw it all and prayed over the dying student. As the police arrived, not only did they not perform first aid but they began to argue with Lawrence’s friend. Through public investigations, as well as public scrutiny, it was determined that the police had failed to carry out a proper police inspection, failed to arrest suspects and had not been briefed efficiently, these are only three out of the eleven failures that the leading officer was charged for. As a result four other policemen were arrested and the Metropolitan Police Service was declared as institutionally racist.

So, why then did this racist assault not escalate into the same violence that was sparked by Mark Duggan’s death? David Cameron would most likely say that it’s because we’ve been the victim of a broken society a society which has been breaking since John Major was in power. Or perhaps, Mark Duggan’s death could be seen as the result of an amalgamation of police hate after such police based blunders as Stephen Lawrence and Jean Charles de Menezes where Duggan was the last straw. If this is true, does that mean that the initial protests in Tottenham over Duggan’s death are justified as a response to police discrimination which in turn adds an air of validity to the riots throughout the UK? I think not. The peaceful protests that took place after Duggans death did indeed have an important message as the community in Tottenham wanted the world to see the result of an unnecessary death; however this political message was overshadowed by the violence and anti-social behaviour that followed. As the riots kicked off in Tottenham and spread slowly but surely across the UK the media focussed on the ‘yob youth’ and in doing so turned the riots into a class battlefield.

This is not to say that class was not an issue in the 1990’s because it was and indeed racial profiling was intolerance was generally higher within society. However as it stands in Britain today we face the worst economic downturn since the Wall Street crash in the 1920’s. The pay gap between the richest and the poorest in society has widened and a youth unemployment has peaked at a rate of 23%. Can it then be assumed that the riots took place due to a pent up anger over the system, the cuts and the lack of jobs. I think that this may hold true for specific cases of rioting as well as the prospect of reckless violence due to boredom. Factors such as these played little or no part in Lawrence’s case and the anger felt in society was channelled and reflected through the media. So for example national newspapers such as the Sun and Daily Mail had the investigation as front page news headlining with the disgrace of Lawrence’s suspected killers. The BBC too played it’s part in investigating police corruption surrounding the case, resulting in the documentary ‘Boys who killed Stephen Lawrence’. It is this media response which ultimately is the biggest difference in the two cases, as the media immediately sympathises with Lawrence and the discrimination he face which was a failure of the justice system , whereas the media instantly condemned the riots as unprecedented violence and Mark Duggan was slowly forgotten.

Indeed in the early 90’s a pubic investigation based on racism within public institutions had never been heard of before thus making Lawrence’s case revolutionary particularly as it highlighted some of the worst racial oppression within a public domain. Until the modern day Lawrence’s case is looked upon as a turning point in the media representation of the police force as well as public scrutiny over a public institution. Indeed if the situations had reversed and riots took place in the 1993 as opposed to now and instead Mark Duggan’s death had remained at the forefront of the protests what would the outcome have been? Stephen Lawrence may not necessarily have been so remembered and perhaps such racism within the police force would never have been uncovered. Yesterday perhaps Duggan may have got the true media coverage that some may argue, his death truly deserved.

Vimla Appadoo is currently studying Politics and Modern History at the University of Manchester

What do you think? Comment below or Become a Contributor and have your own articles published

Enter our Political Photography Competition

2011-11-22T16:51:00.005Z

Politics Student is looking for a number of excellent political photographs to feature in a new political magazine which will be published in early February 2012.

We're looking for photographs of a political nature which are high resolution, well composed and more importantly, interesting. They can be images which you have already taken. If you'd like to make a submission, please email the photograph/s to robsmith7[at]hotmail.co.uk with your name and a short description of the photograph. The deadline for submissions is the 9th December. Good Luck!

Will Privatisation Save Our NHS?

2011-11-19T19:36:00.003Z

With the NHS in turmoil in recent years, many politicians have tried various schemes to improve the situation of our healthcare. But is the answer privatisation? writes Emily Shaw.

The deal to privatise Hinchingbrooke hospital in Cambridgeshire could be the answer that all politicians have been looking for.

The 10 year, £1bn deal to hand the management of Hinchingbrooke hospital over to the private company Circle is one that is a first in the history of the National Health Service. The hospital currently has over £40m worth of debt, which Circle is hoping to pay off by increasing the hospital’s efficiency. This deal demonstrates the first revolutionary change in the shake-up of the NHS system that has been in place since 1948.

Hinchingbrooke will still come under the title of an NHS hospital, yet it will be franchised out to Circle in what is practically a national health experiment. With a group of around 20 hospitals being in severe financial difficulty, MPs believe that this may be a solution to their problems, if the scheme works. Yet, of course, there are some sceptics who believe that this could lead to a complete privatisation of the NHS and would therefore defeat its primary aim – to provide quality healthcare to all when it is needed. A fear that it could lead to a completely privatised system in the future as seen in the USA is certainly an opinion that cannot be ignored.

But with the NHS in a dire financial situation and many hospitals deemed to be unsafe and unviable, perhaps this radical experiment will work. The NHS and the public do however, have a say in the future of Hitchingbrooke. As part of the deal, Circle must maintain all services, and any major changes to the hospital must be agreed buy the public and the NHS.

The hospital aims to operate under a John Lewis-style of employment. Although wages will still be paid at the NHS rate, it is hoped that by giving all employees a say in the happenings of the hospital they will be more motivated to achieve and exceed targets. Whether or not this model can be adapted from the retail environment and transferred into a healthcare one remains to be seen.

Regardless of opinions, the eyes of the public, the NHS and politicians will all be on Hitchingbrooke hospital in the coming decade, to see if Circle can improve the state of the hospital and to see whether the private franchise mechanism is a scheme that can be employed in more of the country’s failing healthcare institutions. Indeed, the future of the NHS will remain unclear until statistics can alter the situation.

Emily Shaw is an IB student at Dartford Grammar School

What do you think? Comment below or Become a Contributor and have your own articles published

Youth Unemployment: the only solution is growth

2011-11-17T17:02:00.004Z

The only way to reduce the number of young people out of work is to create economic growth, writes Sam Boyd.

Youth unemployment burst through the one million mark yesterday, reaching 21.9 percent of all 16-24 year olds – higher than at any point since records began in 1992. This represents bad but not surprising news for young people: youth unemployment begun rising steadily in 2004, spiked dramatically during the 2008 financial crash, and has been coasting towards its current record-breaking level ever since. It shows no sign of stopping.

It is in everyone’s interest to stem this tide. Such a huge amount of young people out of work costs taxpayers billions extra through higher welfare payments and losses in tax revenue. The problems that stem are social and psychological as well as economic: it is well documented that extended periods of unemployment at the beginning of a career can leave lasting scars on individuals and communities, creating pockets of long-term joblessness across the country that stagnate for generations. I’m all too familiar with the confidence-sapping drudge of successive months of unsuccessful job searching, as are many of my friends; to be doing it for over a year, as 260,000 young people have now been doing, will have damaging and potentially irreversible repercussions.

Unsurprisingly, Tory ministers have wheeled out the now familiar scapegoat of the eurozone crisis in order to explain away failings under their watch. Employment minister Chris Grayling duly appeared on Daybreak claiming that “youth unemployment was falling four months ago and was below the level at the general election, but since then we have seen the impact of the European crisis”. He also implied that there are enough jobs out there, if only people tried harder: there were 90,000 new vacancies every week in October, apparently.

Let’s put aside the fact that the real figure was 78,000 per week and they were mostly “elementary occupations” like shelf-stacking and street cleaning, and instead focus on the fact that in there are still 5.6 times more unemployed people than vacancies across the country. In the London borough of Haringey, there are 10,602 jobseekers and 413 vacancies – a ratio of nearly 26 to 1. Most importantly, the eurozone crisis only really hit about four months ago: the chief economist at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development told the Guardian that the time lag between economic events and unemployment changes is typically “six to nine months”. The logical conclusion does not bode well: “If there is going to be a significant impact [from the Eurozone crisis] we haven’t seen it yet.”

David Miliband, in his gradual slink back into frontline politics, has called for “extraordinary measures” to combat youth unemployment. Others rightly lament the abolishing of Future Jobs Fund, Connexions and EMA. But history shows that youth unemployment is properly reversed not by targeted programmes but by a general return to growth in the economy and the new jobs that result. On this crucial benchmark the government is palpably failing: growth is forecast to be just 0.6 percent next year. There is an increased chance of the economy even sinking back into recession, according to the Bank of England. Consequently, the Independent reports today that the government is set to borrow £100bn more than planned – higher than would have been necessary under Labour’s more gradual deficit reduction plans. These are damning verdicts of the coalition’s economic policies.

So whilst the government tries to blame the eurozone, let’s bear in mind that Germany, in the eye of the euro storm, has youth unemployment of just 9 percent. Let's also reflect on the fact that the UK is forecast to grow slower than 19 other EU countries in 2012. Of course, the euro crisis will certainly affect our economy – 40% of our exports go to the eurozone. But can it really render us worse off than countries at the very epicentre of the crisis? Given the Tories recent record in successfully misleading the public over financial matters ("brink of bankruptcy" comes to mind), we must hope that this time the facts win out.

Sam Boyd graduated from the University of Manchester last year with a degree in History and Politics

What do you think? Comment below or Become a Contributor and have your own articles published

Is PMQs still worthwhile?

2011-11-13T15:56:00.003Z

Despite its numerous shortfalls, PMQs is still a worthwhile addition to the Parliamentary week, writes Harjyot Sihera.

Prime Ministers Questions (PMQs) can be argued to the ‘highlight’ of the Parliamentary week where the Commons boasts a heaving chamber of MPs, press and television cameras and in fact this tradition celebrated its 50th birthday recently. However this old political institution was ‘poo-pooed’ by Mr Cameron in this last weeks Grazia Magazine (yes Grazia Magazine, it seems the PM is trying to reach out to the female electorate). Cameron stated that the atmosphere of PMQ’s is ‘gladiatorial, testosterone-charged’ and is the ‘most unpleasant-looking thing [he] has to do all week’; It seems the PM doesn’t enjoy his sparring sessions with the Opposition Leader Ed Miliband. This raises the question that if PMQ’s is nothing but a meeting of two squabbling Party leaders, has it any worth?

Many would argue that the nature of PMQs is all too ‘jokey’ and the theatrical environment of the chamber does not achieve much in the way of a debate. Firstly most questions posed to the PM are of such a wide scope that no-one can really expect the PM to have full and comprehensive answers, which is after all why he has his departments and ministers and Parliament has Select Committees and Westminster Hall for more debates. Also due to the timings of PMQs, simply the PM does not have the ‘time’ to answer questions fully even if he can; this makes PMQs all a bit fragmented with nothing really being achieved in the half an hour.

Similarly, more recently, doesn’t PMQs just consist of John Bercow shrieking at jeering MPs to come to order? Speaking with Natascha Engle (Chair of the Backbench Business Committee and MP for North East Derbyshire) last year, she assured me that the noise is far greater than what one hears on the television.

Aside from time problems and complicated questions, one could argue that some questions do not fall into this trap as they are nothing but patsy questions to seemingly ‘suck up to the PM’ that have been distributed by the Whips. Another problem with questions are they can often just be statements and not questions; in fact some are just a ploy to get a MPs constituency mentioned at a high profile time in Parliament.

However all this said, PMQs is a good way to involve the electorate. The theatre of PMQs is compelling to watch and a good all-round short debate that many of the electorate are interested in watching. With a failing percentage of the electorate that are interested in Politics, PMQs provides a part of parliament that is not too heavy in legislation and easy to understand.
Likewise even though Mr Cameron complains about the ‘macho-ness’ of the debate, it is an opportunity to see the two main party leaders up against each other; after all they are the faces of their respective parties and should be able to debate face to face. We saw the positive engagement during the 2010 Election Campaigns and the live televised debates and with PMQs being of similar calibre, it is, again, a good political institution for the electorate.

After all PMQs is part of the nation’s history and is a good way to get all backbench MPs, members of the cabinet and party leaders in the same place at the same time. So what if all it is is theatre? It raises the profile of Parliament for members of the electorate who otherwise would not be interested in parliamentary debates. It adds energy and excitement to the chamber which many enjoy and certainly brightens up boring Wednesday afternoon lunch breaks.

Harjyot Sihera is a recent Politics graduate of the University of Nottingham

What do you think? Comment below or Become a Contributor and have your own articles published

The left-wing student movement is quickly losing its way

2011-11-12T14:06:00.004Z

An increasing number of young people waving the red flag sit entirely at odds with what the socialist movement should stand for, writes Jack Kelly.

I am not usually one for racy sensationalism. Mainly because I don’t believe that many readers of this website are looking for the sort of one-sided, left-bashing anecdotal stories that they could just as easily find in any of the middle-market tabloids. However, a story I was told by my housemate yesterday outraged me so much that I could not help but pen something to shed light on it. Although I have never been involved, my university student union has an admittedly commendable history in campaigning against privatisation, the current austerity cuts and the situation in Gaza. Nevertheless, when I was told the news yesterday that elected members of the union executive took the deplorable and rather petty decision to march into the union building brandishing nails and proceed to trash a budget airline’s information stall, reducing the two women working on it to tears, I could not help but voice my opposition to this, and the ugly shift it represents.

Though naturally opposed to the violent intimidation of two women who had the misfortune to work for a corporation which the Union believes to represent the root of all evil, I must however confess that I was not entirely surprised by the Union’s intimidation. I have noticed in recent years that the new generation of left-wing movement has neither the tolerance of its forefathers or its intellectual grounding. Would Tony Benn have stood shoulder to shoulder with Charlie Grimwood (the son of Pink Floyd guitarist Dave Gilmour sentenced for swinging from the Cenotaph during last year’s student protests) in the fight for social justice? Would Kier Hardy have lauded the actions of my union’s executive committee in the victimisation of two women trying to earn a living? I very much doubt they would.

Please do not mistake me; there are thousands of young people on the left who fight a noble struggle in what they believe to be a campaign against reactionary Coalition policies. However, on the fringes of their movement lurks a growing number of young people who while waving the red flag, sit entirely at odds with what the socialist movement should stand for. The public as a whole may be divided on the austerity cuts but they are almost unanimous in their revulsion against the mindless vandalism and intimidation carried out in the name of the anti-cuts movement. In a recent poll, forty seven percent of people support St Paul’s Cathedral’s decision to take legal action against the protestors who forced it to close its doors. Yet at the same time, the centre left (including the Labour leadership) remains largely silent about their uncomfortable new brothers in arms.

It seems almost comical, after last year’s student protests I saw a photo of a group of young people brandishing a banner proclaiming ‘anarchists against the university cuts’. I will refrain from insulting your intelligence by explaining the philosophical stupidity of this statement but it represents not just a worrying shift towards violence but also a vacuum in correct socialist ideology. How can these people claim to be part of the same movement who as the Jarrow marchers and the youth of the sexual revolution?

This radicalisation of people claiming to hold socialist ideas is a recent development, heating up during the ongoing economic crisis. Neither is this radicalisation unique to Britain, the recent rioting in Italy and Greece as well as the ‘Occupy...’ protests prove this. Commonplace as these extreme ideas and practises are becoming in an ever unstable world, in this country at least, the mainstream centre-left – that being the Labour Party and Young Labour especially – must to more to disassociate themselves from the neo-Bolsheviks hiding beneath the red rose of the British social democrats.

Jack Kelly

What do you think? Comment below or Become a Contributor and have your own articles published

Are Marches a Positive Force for Change?

2011-11-11T19:22:00.003Z

Perhaps it will only take a makeshift camp in the heart of London and a willing audience to bring substantial change, writes Aydan Greatrick.

Last year, on the 10th of November 2010, I observed what was called the most violent protest on the streets of London for a generation. Newspapers from across the world featured images of chaos, destruction and near anarchy, and a police force weak to confront those behind the violence. The message of the protest was lost in the media frenzy that followed and any support such a march could have gained from the general public vanished in the fires of Millbank.

One year on and again a march was taking place through the streets of London. The inspiration behind this march was much the same as last year; tuition fees needed to be reduced or scrapped, funding for education should not be cut and wealth should be more evenly distributed. Yet despite the obvious similarities in purpose, argument and passion between the two marches, a stark difference in atmosphere and certainly outcome made for two remarkably different days. There was no violence despite a lingering air of tension between marchers and the police. As an observer I found myself uncertain about the effectiveness of this march, the message of which seemed less clear than it was last year. The key difference between the two however was the number of people who came to show their support. Far less people marched this year then had done last year, most likely due to the cause of the march. The posters scattered around London on the build up to the event declare that those taking part will be doing so to ‘DEFEND EDUCATION’ and to ‘FIGHT PRIVATISATION’. These goals are ambiguous and the alternatives numerous and I find it understandable that, given this, the march only attracted a fraction of the support seen last year.

But was the march a success? It certainly didn’t attract the same level of attention in the media seen last year but given the nature of the media’s response this cannot be taken as a sign of failure. As expressed, they were two very different marches despite such comparable goals. Yet I could not help but feel that the march, given the ambiguous goals and lower turnout, was not as successful as its organisers had hoped. The remarkable and extremely heavy police presence was intimidating and quite over-precautionary, preventing the marchers from having the same optimism and spontaneity of last year. Whilst some members of the general public would clap in support, even whistle or shout loudly from the sidelines, there was a frosty reception from others understandably concerned about the possible violent outcomes of such demonstrations. One man engaged with a protester, declaring him a fascist for filling the streets of London with an ideological army in the style of Mosely and his blackshirts. Across the length of the route windows were protected by wooden boards, roads were blocked off and the march at one point diverted to avoid any symbolism gained were an unexpected flash-mob of protesting electricians to meet up with the main body of marchers. It all seemed to me that this form of mass democracy had tested London’s patience and people were no longer ready to listen to what was being said. The police were prepared for any violence, sapping a great deal of vibrancy from the event and generating a highly charged atmosphere. Equally the people of London seemed bemused by it all, if not unmoved or angry. Perhaps witnesses managed a slight grin through the window at work or uploaded picture to Facebook but I doubt many people were inspired to think about the issues raised by the marchers which is a shame because a fresh look at the many issues we face in society is exactly what we need; a march, I feel, is not going to bring this about.

By chance I found myself amongst the campaigners at St. Paul’s in the evening. I was curious about the activities of those camping on the church’s steps and aware of the remarkably positive response these demonstrators had generated for a cause very far from the mainstream. Unlike the march there was a measured atmosphere, a shared purpose and will for change. I asked one campaigner what he felt the ideological goal of the group was and his answer was quite unexpected. ‘We aren’t anti-capitalist’ he said, ‘but we are about fairness. We want to make capitalism fairer.’

The march, a logistical extravaganza of noise and tension, had failed to raise the attention and support expected, but calmly, in one corner of London, sits a group of determined individuals whose modest aim is to change the world. People can listen to what they have to say at St. Paul’s and have more sympathy for their methods. Many marches have taken place in my lifetime through the streets of London but how many have had a positive impact? Perhaps it will only take a makeshift camp in the heart of London and a willing audience to bring the biggest changes of all.

Aydan Greatrick

Clegg's advantage on Europe

2011-11-07T22:12:00.002Z

Nick Clegg was absolutely right recently when he said that “close ties with Europe are absolutely essential’’ for Britain and that “retreat to the margins of Europe’’ would mean “economic suicide", writes Daniel Boomsma.

Isolation is no solution but half of the Conservative Party regard Europe a burden rather than a ‘tool for improvement’. Clegg must stand his ground and force the Conservative Party to compromise. This is the ideal moment for the LibDems to be the ‘troublemakers’.

When it comes to Europe, Britain is, and will always be, divided. As a foreigner it is hard to understand why Britain does not want to take a leading role in getting Europe out of the financial crisis. Cooperation with France and Germany would also increase Britain's influence on the continent.

Apart from that, and the absence of a debate on whether there's something called European solidarity, the main issue is of course Brussels and it's power - or lack of power, it really depends on your position. Eurosceptics tend to simplify the debate by saying it is a conflict sovereignty and national interest against centralized power and European interests. Or, more abstract, solidarity against responsibility. This is a mistake. Instead of putting a question mark at the end of each sentence with 'Europe' or 'European Union' in it, the Conservatives, and indeed all eurosceptics, should start thinking about new ways to improve (economic) cooperation and integration between member states. The repatriation of powers from Brussels isn't one of them.

Tory MP George Eustice’s remarks perfectly illustrate the sentiment within the Conservative Party: “when we want to get this country moving again we have got to lash regulations coming from the European Union’’. He blamed Clegg for being “too simplistic” but to me it seems the other way around: his - and half of the Conservative Party’s - approach of Europe and the Union is one-sided and prejudiced. I do agree with what most people don’t like about the Union; bureaucracy indeed is a burden and things should be more efficient and transparent. But an unconditional rejection of Brussels is not the way to get to a strong and sustainable Europe. If Eustice wants this country “to get moving again”, he should support Clegg. If he thinks the Union is a burden, why doesn't he support it's reform? Weak, weak, weak!

Clegg's in a ideal position because he does not support Europe for its own sake but because it’s essential for Britain’s economy. In the long run isolation from Europe means less jobs and less growth. Every economist in the world agrees with the fact that a powerful Europe - the world’s largest, borderless (!) single market - is undoubtedly in Britain’s interest. In short, facts are on Clegg's side.

For now, it seems, Clegg and the Liberal Democrats are in the ideal position to be the ‘troublemakers’. It's time to take the gloves off. Clegg's prediction that there would be ''bumps and scrapes along the way'' now certainly becomes reality. The ongoing debate on Europe, the Union, Brussels and it's powers is a chance for the LibDems to find (and use) their distinct Liberal voice and show that they're opposite to the Conservative Party when it comes to progressive international policy. Clegg has to force Cameron to compromise. If he manages to do so, he can claim it as a victory for his party.

Daniel Boomsma is a Law student at the University of Amsterdam

What do you think? Comment below or Become a Contributor and have your own articles published

Celebrating Prime Minister's Questions

2011-11-03T10:42:00.004Z

Prime Minister’s Questions turned fifty years old last week. The most recognised and popular session of parliament in the world celebrated it’s birthday with David Cameron at the dispatch box, fifty years after Harold MacMillan first spoke at regular sessions, writes Adam Kelly.

Better known as PMQ’s and broadcast across the world and on the internet, every Wednesday the Prime Minister answers questions from MP’s on anything they wish. But PMQ’s has become important and special for the battles and duals between the man in power and the leader of the opposition, across the table, dispatch box to dispatch box, as MP’s on both sides of the house heckle and cheer, while the poor speaker tries to maintain some form of order.

In other countries, such as the US, many complain that PMQ’s is pointless, half an hour a week for each side to try and ‘win’ something they cannot see. They discard PMQ’s as pointless, but it is a British institution, an event and a place for the issues of the week to be discussed and debated, and to get some idea of which party is doing best.

In 1961 a committee of MP’s recommended that the Prime Minister take questions in a formal setting at a set time each week. Before this the Prime Minister was treated just as any other minister in the government and would be asked questions whenever he or she appeared.

However the committee found that set sessions worked better and were needed and so PMQ’s was born. At first as two 15 minute sessions on Tuesday and Thursday, and this practice remained until Tony Blair created one 30 minute session in the late 90’s.

When PMQ’s began it was like any other question time, a place for backbenchers to ask questions and get responses, but over time it has become more like what we have today. A powerful, hard hitting session where both sides are desperate to finish on top.

And although some hate it, they call the heckling and cheering child-like and they describe the MP’s as children when they should be politicians, I hope the majority of the public love PMQ’s.

Countries like the US have no formal way of questioning the President in Congress; no easy way of seeing what their politicians are up to.

It began with newspapers just reporting it, then radio broadcasted it, then television showed it. PMQ’s will stand as an example of British democracy and a transparent parliament for ever. It is a British institution, a great thing, and something for which I would personally be knocking on the Prime Minister’s door for if it ever disappeared.

It might be a week late, but Happy Birthday PMQ’s, you never fail to disappoint.

Adam Kelly

“Thou Shalt Not Occupy the London Stock Exchange”

2011-11-01T19:22:00.002Z

With legal action being taken against the protestors that are part of the Occupy London Stock Exchange movement, surely this goes against an individual’s right to protest, writes Emily Shaw.

St Paul’s Cathedral had been shut for a week due to the settlement of tents that have gathered outside of it due to its proximity to the London Stock Exchange, but whether this action was actually deemed necessary is debatable. The protests have been peaceful in London, unlike similar protests in other cities of the world and for that alone, the government should be thankful. Yet, as was earlier discovered in the week, many of the 200 tents that surround the cathedral are in fact empty at night and therefore are not a major cause for concern.

The government is concerned with its public image and handling of the protest, especially in the wake of the London riots and previous tuition fees and G8 protests. Yet is legal action really necessary? Surely it is condemning the peaceful way in which this protest has been carried out, which seems highly ironic. It is also highly likely and ironic that those practicing their legal right to peacefully protest will get evicted from the site by the courts much quicker than the illegal settlers of Dale Farm in Essex, as it is a case that directly affects the government.

Although the cathedral was shut over health and safety fears, members of the cathedral did not condemn the protestors and in fact embraced their protest when it began, yet with no end in sight legal action has been deemed necessary. With Michael Welbank of the planning committee meeting stating that “...an encampment on a busy thoroughfare clearly impacts the right of others”, who will win this battle is unclear. But if the protestors are forced to move, it is unlikely that their protest will cease; they will merely move elsewhere and may cause even more trouble in doing so.

What can be guaranteed is that the protestors have no intentions to damage the cathedral or harm its visitors – one stated that the building represented truth and contributed to why the camp is situated outside of it.

The costly legal battles that will come with this case are not something that the government should be focussing on at a time of economic austerity, nor is the apparent condemnation of a peaceful process. It is important to recognise that the timing of the protests are hindering their occurrence, as are the fact that pitching a tent wherever a person wants to should not be encouraged, but the mountain that has been made out of this molehill of a case should not be welcomed at this time.

Edit: As of this morning, St Paul's has agreed to suspend its current legal action

Emily Shaw is an IB student at Dartford Grammar School

The message of Occupy Wall Street?

2011-10-21T22:01:00.002+01:00

“His view was that we should wait three years and vote in a general election if we wanted to make a difference.”

So said a no doubt bemused activist at the Occupy camp outside St Paul’s Cathedral, in central London, talking of the response they got from a banker who told them what he thought of the #OccupyLSX protest. That single sentence showcases the very reason why many people have failed to understand the Occupy Wall Street protests, writes Elliot Folan.

Both in the UK and in America, there has been a general attitude that the protesters don’t know what they want, have no aims, and need to get active in the liberal democratic system of politics.

In the US, the Washington Post has, not uniquely, completely failed to understand the point of the protest, declaring that “if Occupy Wall Street began lending out its organisers…as campaign strategists” they might convince people to vote for Obama. Which leads one to ask the key question: if those people occupying the plazas and squares all over the world have full confidence in our political leaders and want to see them re-elected, what on earth are they doing taking direct action?

Anthony Painter, in the UK, is utterly confused by the protests, mainly because he too is trapped in the mentality of the electoral machine. On LabourList he asked why, when regional elections in Spain coincided with the Indignant protests against the cuts and the economic crisis, the Peoples Party – more right-wing and pro-cuts than the governing Socialist Party – romped home. He pushed this logic to its extreme conclusion and declared triumphantly “the Spanish public want a fiscally conservative right-wing government”, using it to justify his Blairite theory that social democrats must become more right-wing in order to win elections.

He misses some key things in his analysis - the right-ward turn of the Spanish Socialists, the general European trend during the crisis of punishing incumbent (whether right-wing or left-wing) parties and the majoritarian electoral system which unfairly benefitted the most popular party. But he also misses the fundamental point: turnout was 66%, which meant that over 20,000,000 Spaniards didn’t have enough confidence in their political system to even go out and vote. I don’t doubt that some of those twenty million people were among those occupying the towns and cities of Spain last weekend. And I don’t doubt too that the thousands who protested in St Paul’s Square in London on the same day didn’t bother to vote in 2010. And I don’t blame them.

The message I take from the Occupy movement is not just one of discontent with a broken financial and economic system. It is discontent - indeed outright cynicism - about a so-called “representative” political system that is seen to benefit financiers, bankers and corporations over the interests of ordinary people.

And when the Westminster government announces a tax cut for big companies at the same time as raising taxes on the poor through a VAT hike - alongside the recent revelations about privileged lobbying access for big business - what other conclusion are we supposed to draw, but that our political system doesn’t serve us?

The alternative of any shade can’t, in the apt words of Derek Wall, be constructed by a committee. But I think what’s coming out of the #OccupyLSX camp - consensual, engaging decision-making which hands power to everyone and not a “representative” elite - serves as a better model for a political system than the sham we currently face.

And with election turnouts tumbling across Europe and America, I’m clearly not alone in thinking that.

Elliot Folan

What do you think? Comment below or Become a Contributor and have your own articles published

Without a change in course, the wrong people will continue to bear the brunt of economic turmoil

2011-10-13T15:27:00.005+01:00

New poverty and unemployment figures released this week highlight the gravity of the crisis facing Britain today, writes Sam Boyd.

On Tuesday the Institute for Fiscal Studies released a report showing that by 2013 median household incomes will fall by 7%, the sharpest drop for 35 years. These new figures hammer home the cold reality that we are merely at the beginning of this recession’s fallout, and it is already hitting ordinary working people harder than at any time since the 1970s.

The government’s inflexible response to the ongoing crisis has at best failed to bring about the necessary growth for recovery and at worst directly contributed towards the crisis of confidence at its heart. Public debt and the budget deficit won’t be brought down without an increase in tax receipts and a decrease in welfare payments. Yet, the government’s blind focus on austerity measures at the expense of growth means that unemployment – patently destructive on both fronts – is rapidly worsening.

Belatedly, George Osborne announced last week a round of “credit easing” to funnel much needed cash into the hands of small businesses, reflecting a tacit acceptance that his much vaunted Project Merlin has failed to make banks lend sufficiently. But given that the government already owns 83% of RBS and 41% of Lloyds, it’s somewhat baffling that our Chancellor doesn’t instead exert more pressure on those banks, or even heed the advice of Citigroup’s chief UK economist and “appoint a new chairman of RBS and tell them what to do”. Ideological constraints rule out such pragmatism.

The elephant in the room is the plain lack of demand in the economy. Tesco revealed its lowest UK sales performance for 20 years in the three months to August. Consumer confidence has plummeted back to the depths of 2008-9. Even if banks were keener to lend to small businesses, it is unlikely many would risk borrowing to invest when consumers simply aren’t spending. Condescending directions from the Prime Minister for households to “pay off credit card and store card bills” will hardly help, even if they are hastily retracted.

Meanwhile, the outlook for poverty is probably the grimmest feature of an ever-grimmer economic picture. In two years time the IFS calculates 600,000 more children and 800,000 more adults will be in ‘absolute poverty’ – living below today’s poverty line – than at present.

The coalition last year pledged to cut absolute child poverty from 17% to 5% by 2020. IFS’s findings show it will instead rise to 23% by 2020 – which, as James Plunkett of the Resolution Foundation spells out, would represent “an almost complete reversal of the 900,000 children lifted out of poverty under Labour”. Unless there is a radical change in course, by 2020 the UK could be a country where almost one in four children live in poverty.

Starker still is the IFS’s apportion of blame to the coalition: “Changes to personal tax and benefit policy announced by this coalition government … are forecast to increase absolute child poverty by 200,000 in 2015-16 and 300,000 in 2020-21.” For all the coalition’s talk about reducing poverty it is their policies that are actively driving it up.

What's more, the phantom of low pay continues to haunt millions of workers. Whilst ministers focus their efforts on chastising ‘benefits culture’, figures show that 60% of adults and 61% of children living in poverty in fact reside in working households.

It is also unclear whether a life above the poverty line can guarantee a standard of living we might consider socially acceptable. An ongoing research project by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation aims to determine the level of income needed to allow a “minimum acceptable standard of living” in the UK today. A family of four, for example, needs a total of £36,800 to reach the minimum standard – yet, two parents working full time on the minimum wage bring in just £25,292 between them before tax.

Many families, the Foundation’s latest findings show, need to earn over 20% more this year than they did in 2010 to reach the minimum income standard because of the freeze in Child Benefit and cuts to tax credits. Yet, the IFS data shows incomes are instead falling quicker than at any time since 1974-77.

On Wednesday came the second sobering announcement of the week, this time from the ONS, that unemployment reached a dizzying seventeen-year high of 2.57 million this August. Over a fifth of 16-24 year olds are unemployed. Far higher public sector lay-offs than expected have not been offset by private sector job creation.

Employment Secretary Chris Grayling duly appeared on the BBC blaming an “international financial crisis” of the kind the Tories were so keen to ignore when Labour was the preferred scapegoat. After months of Osborne trumpeting Britain as a “safe haven in the storm”, we are suddenly “not immune” from the eurozone crisis. Any culpability of domestic policy is discounted, yet the UK’s anaemic growth rate was worse than any other major economy months before the eurozone plunged into catastrophe.

The wrong people – children, young adults, hard-working families and the poor – are paying for the failures of a financial sector let loose by successive governments’ blasé attitude towards the City. Coalition policies are now directly contributing towards increases in poverty and our stark lack of economic recovery. The structures that led to failure remain largely intact: banks have been given eight years to “ringfence” their high street banking from riskier investment arms. Multi-million pound bonuses will no doubt break the records again this Christmas.

Unless we see a stark change in policy that provides growth and jobs, supports low to middle earners, and shifts the tax burden towards the land, property and financial transactions of those who caused the 2008 collapse and maintain a chokehold on this country’s wealth, the rest of us who did nothing to create this economic turmoil will continue to suffer its consequences.

Sam Boyd graduated from the University of Manchester last year with a degree in History and Politics

Fox needs his own defence

2011-10-10T14:02:00.004+01:00

The current scandal surrounding Liam Fox prove that the public's faith in MP is unlikely to be restored in the near future, writes Emily Shaw.

After continuing speculation that the Defence Secretary Liam Fox is using his political position to pursue his own interests and help out his friends, it is no wonder that the public does not completely trust its MPs.

Liam Fox is refusing to answer questions about help that he has provided for his best man at his wedding, Adam Werrity, despite pressing questions from the Labour party. Fox is accused of using his connections that he has acquired from his political position to benefit his friend. For example, he has set up a meeting in Dubai for Mr Werrity and a businessman.

Although Mr Fox has asked the Ministry of Defence to investigate any potential breaches of security or conduct, whether the results will necessarily be reliable can be argued. This is another blow not only to David Cameron’s Conservative party, but to MPs in general.

Since the expenses scandal, the public’s trust in their MPs has been rocky to say the least. This lack of trust has been a priority of all parties to repair since the scandal, but cases such as Fox’s do not help MPs image. What punishment should be used in such cases, though? Although Mr Fox is (and will be) condemned for his actions, this alone is unlikely to satisfy the public.

Although some MPs were imprisoned in the wake of the expenses scandal, this is highly unlikely to occur in such cases as Liam Fox’s. Yet David Cameron must appear to conduct himself correctly and harshly against Mr Fox, in an attempt to set some standards in his government. This is not the first time that Werrity has accompanied Fox on business trips and it has also been revealed that he carries business cards that advertise himself as an advisor to Liam Fox.

How any government in the coming years will battle to overcome such corruption and favouritism in the Cabinet is of great dispute, but what everyone can be certain of is that something must be done to combat it. This is an issue that is coming to light more often in recent times, but it is clear that it is something that has been going on for many years and a crime of which all parties are guilty of.

What will happen to both Mr Fox and Mr Werrity is unclear, yet it is safe to say that the public’s faith in their MPs is highly unlikely to be restored in the near future, with cases such as Liam Fox’s emerging increasingly often.

Emily Shaw is an IB student at Dartford Grammar School

In Defence of Politicians

2011-10-09T13:38:00.004+01:00

We must remember that after all politicians are only human, writes Edward Sainsbury.

Is it worth being a politician? It is a question which is considered by numerous individuals at different stages of their life; whether they are 5 years old and telling their friend that they will be Prime Minister when they are older, whether it is the politics student who envisages and imagines what they might do were they to end up as a politician, or maybe it is the retired professional who seeks to give something back to society. Whilst many would agree it is seen as a strong profession (indicated as such by the endless numbers of people clambering for seats at each election), the role should ideally come with a Health warning.

For not only is the position of being a politician, regardless of one’s status within parliament; either a backbench MP, a whip, a Cabinet minister or maybe a Deputy Speaker – the role has numerous challenges to it which prohibit numerous individuals from taking it on.

First of all, a position in the public eye such as being a politician leads to no end of intrusions into your private life by the media and the public; anxious to know what the politician is plotting away at; determined to know his every action and willing to protest at his every mistake.

Secondly, the role of a politician is such that working prevents the ability of a politician to adequately participate in family life as well as carrying out their responsibilities due to the intense nature of the role and the required hours; which is not helped by late end times for debates and the necessity for early starts.

Thirdly, the continual barrage of criticism and the general lack of praise and congratulation can often be disheartening and disorientating.

Fourthly, politics appears to be inherently corrupt, power appears to render politicians’ initial aims, values, principles and goals soulless and a new corrupt version emerges which undermines the confidence in the public in democracy; in particular this is evidenced in political scandals.

Maybe this is why the majority of our politicians are highly intelligent from strong academic backgrounds and are from institutions which instil confidence and assuredness, making strong characters capable of coping under extreme stress and intense pressure.

Having considered this, maybe you too will contemplate like I did; do we give our politicians a raw deal? Or do we think we could do a better job under the same pressures? Is it the politician or the system that is corrupt? Should we give our politicians a bit more credit for the work they do?

A few things to think about when we next decide to slate a politician (MP or otherwise). After all they’re only human.

Edward Sainsbury is currently studying Law at the University of Birmingham

How to beat the world's greatest injustice

2011-10-05T10:58:00.006+01:00

Over one billion people are going hungry right now. So much more needs to be done and we're running out of time, writes Edward Atkins.

The Red Cross' annual World Disasters Report, released last month, carried news of the greatest injustice in the world we live in. In the past year, 1.5 billion people were defined as dangerously overweight, a figure which should raise alarms bells in any context. However when it is compared to the figure that at least 925million go to bed hungry every night, it reveals a disgraceful contradiction in our global society as well as confirming that world hunger is not a result of natural scarcity but is, in fact, a man-made tragedy.

Why, in a world that can produce more than enough food to feed all, do so many go hungry? The answer is simple, inequality, and the developed world is not doing enough to help the developing reach a point at which it is food secure. In fact, food crises are worsening through irresponsible commodity speculation, commitment to the double edged sword of biofuels, trade protectionism and failure to address global warming. There is need for wholesale reform and regulation.

To combat this problem, and the inequality that surrounds it, there are four steps that the world must be committed to:

The world must tackle speculation on agricultural commodities to put a stop to spiralling food prices. Governments have previously waived their collective responsibility to regulate how foodstuffs are grown and traded, allowing a few powerful businesses and investors to profit from agriculture while millions suffer in hunger and poverty. Sadly, farmland has become another asset to be gambled with. It is estimated that Barclays, an important trader in the agricultural market, could have earned as much as £340m from food speculation last year alone. With the poor of the developing world spending up to 75% of their income on food, they are incredibly vulnerable to sudden price fluctuations similar to those that have occurred this year that pushed food prices to more than double their prices 20 years ago. A 2008 spike in prices pushed some 100 million into poverty and it is estimated that price increases since June 2010 have done the same to over 44 million more, approximately equivalent to the population of Spain. To combat this problem, the intra-governmental bodies of the world must develop a new regulatory framework to increase the transparency of the commodity markets, by mandating the reporting of transactions in as close to real time as possible and the restriction of excessive speculation and market abuse.

The world must put an end to the biofuels mandates and subsidies that fuel food price volatility and land grabs in developing countries. Yes, biofuels are a step forward for environmentalism but such an industry takes important farmland away from subsistence and market agriculture, putting millions in danger of malnutrition. The target of achieving a 10 per cent share of biofuels use in transport fuel globally by 2020 couldput an extra 140 million people at risk of hunger. The land needed to cover Europe's needs alone would be an area larger than Belgium and the Netherlands combined. It is time for world leaders to listen to the facts and re-evaluate their commitment to biofuels and reform the policy by: scrapping the 10% target, ensuring that the full social impact of biofuels is taken into account in decision-making and introducing strict sustainability criteria in relations to food security and access to resources.

The world must stop extensive massive state intervention by the European Union, the United States and Japan in providing huge domestic agricultural subsidies to their own farmers, which keep poorer producers out of the global markets, with greater investment in agriculture in developing countries. Such investment in the 500 million small-scale food producers who feed nearly two billion people represents the biggest opportunity to increase world food production and boost food security. Years of neglect have results in smallholders of the third world turn to subsistence farming, only growing enough to feed their families of communities. Investment will provide incentives for such individuals to grow more, trade more and create global agricultural markets where there are currently none.

The world must wake up and understand the dramatic effect that climate change will have on food prices. Research has suggested that climate change will increase the price of maize by 86% by 2030 – a time when more food is needed to feed a growing population. An increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather will also further devastate harvests. To counter this threat, there needs to be an ambitious and binding but fair global climate deal. This is essential for building a world that is food secure. There is only a short amount of time until it is too late to back-pedal away from what global warming brings.

Governments, aid groups and the private sector need to focus on securing long-term food access for the communities that are vulnerable to low supply; sustainable agriculture has to be invested in across the world and the market speculation that has caused global food prices to become so volatile. The Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations will not be achieved without "urgent attention to nutrition" and prescribed methods to tackle inadequacies in efforts to defeat world hunger. So far, only 18 countries, including Peru, Niger and Bangladesh have committed to improving their efforts.

Over one billion people are going hungry right now. So much more needs to be done and we're running out of time. Soon it will be too late, global warming will worsen, food prices will continue to rise and a large proportion of the worlds population will slip into poverty. Now is the time to act.

Edward Atkins is currently studying a Masters in International Relations and International Law at the University of Kent

What do you think? Comment below or Become a Contributor and have your own articles published

Refounding Labour: How Labour are setting an example to others

2011-10-04T15:39:00.003+01:00

Labour is possibly in the best position of the parties to boost membership by reaching out to non-aligned voters, writes Daniel Boomsma.

You can say a lot about Labour leader Ed Miliband, but you've got to admit that the man some people call ''fairly common'' has ambition. This ambition culminates in the Refounding Labour project, which should, on the long term, cause the ''greatest shake-up in the way the [Labour] party is run since it was founded in 1918''. It's is all about getting people involved and regaining trust. Labour knows that politics and society have evolved. Miliband is fully aware of the fact that political parties have to change in order to keep up with modern times. New challenges ahead can only be faced when fundamental reforms are made. In that perspective, Refounding Labour sets an example for other parties.

Politics and political engagement are radically different than roughly two decades ago. Political culture, as shadow cabinet member and head of the project Peter Hain wrote in one of the first Refounding Labour document, has changed massively. First of all, the traditional two major parties, Labour and the Conservatives, have declined in support tremendously. The Liberal Democrats, Green, UKIP and to lesser extent the BNP, have all grown substantionally. But politics have changed as a whole too. An example: the UK now has one of the lowest rates (1.5%) of membership among other established democracies. Hain states that these times are pivotal to Labour, a moment of ''great opportunity''. Although political party membership-rates are declining, I do believe that the coming decades are crucial for politics in general.

On the Labour reforms. Simply ''amending clauses in our constitution'' isn't enough, Hain points out. When Labour reformed Clause 4 - this part of the Labour party constitution sets out the aims, values and ideals - they chose the way forward, writes Hain. However, society has moved on since then and Labour hasn't always kept up.

So what does Miliband want to do for the party that lost almost five million voters between 1997 and 2010. First of all, he aims at reforming the party from the inside. First, Miliband wants open primaries to select candidates, similar to those used in the United States (everyone can be a party candidate; merit, and not party membership, is all that counts). Secondly, he thinks that cutting the price membership schemes will have a positive effect. Third, he aims at scrapping the elections to the shadow cabinet.

Most reforms though, eventually have to do with organizing people and communities. Maybe it's a chance of getting closer to the Conservatives too; Cameron's Big Society aims at strengthening local communities and Labour shouldn't reject this idea immediately. In order to get people involved more, local Labour Parties also have to work together more closely with, according to the first Refounding Labour report, ''civic activists and social entrepreneurs''. Miliband wants Labour to be a ''genuine community organizing movement''.

So how difficult is it for politics to 'go local' again in times of globalisation? Well, it shouldn't be a problem at all. Globalisation has, in way, been a fundament for local politics. The dichotomy between national and local politics has grown. Therefore, the role of both has become increasingly important. People tend to value their own local community more when it appears in stark contrast with national (more globalized) politics.

On the other hand, I think getting local politics 'rebooted' depends on whether Labour can break with traditions. You have to get rid of unnecessary bureaucracy and a rule-bound approach. In short, as Hain stresses: ''councillors should be community orientated, not committee orientated. [They] should be facing out the town hall into the community. It's a bad thing to be locked up in the town hall, remote from the electorate''.

Although change is necessary, Refounding Labour shouldn't immediately become a huge project. The more questions you raise, the more difficult it becomes to answer them all. Renewing the party from within and strengthening the bond between electorate and councillors is difficult enough.

Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have been experimenting with ways to boost membership and reach out to non-aligned voters. But Labour is in a better position. Ruling a country and, at the same time, trying to reform the party structures is a complex task. Nevertheless it's absolutely crucial and Labour is very much aware of that. The Conservatives, and the Lib Dems even more, should see Labour's initiative as an example. It's not just another try to regain power. It's a fundamental first step in order to face the challenges ahead.

Daniel Boomsma is a Law student at the University of Amsterdam

What do you think? Comment below or Become a Contributor and have your own articles published

Heavy on ambition, light on policy – but this wasn’t the return of ‘Red Ed’.

2011-10-02T16:56:00.001+01:00

Ed Miliband’s speech brimmed with radical ambition. Its content, written off by most of the media as ‘left-wing’, was certainly light on policy. But it may be closer to the hallowed centre ground than many think, writes Sam Boyd.

The scale of challenge Miliband set himself in his speech to the Labour Party conference on Tuesday – to “write a new chapter in our country's history” by ditching a thirty-year economic consensus – is immense.

You can’t fault his ambition. The Labour leader announced the “failure of a system, a way of doing things, an old set of rules.” He painted David Cameron as “the last gasp” of this defunct arrangement. “Only Cameron”, Miliband said in his most cutting line, “could believe that you make ordinary families work harder by making them poorer, and you make the rich work harder by making them richer.”

By contrast, Miliband declared himself “The guy who is determined to break the closed circles of Britain.” It was idealistic stuff. It was also daring; no mainstream political leader had hitherto confronted so openly the fundamentals of our thirty-year economic settlement, even when it collapsed three years ago.

The obvious question is: how? Commentators have, inevitably, written off the speech for its lack of policy. Its dithery structure certainly raised more questions than it answered, and it is unlikely to cause an earthquake in the opinion polls.

But Miliband has been sensible to resist calls to be more specific on policy detail. He is setting in motion a profound shift in the Labour Party’s direction. There is over three years before an election manifesto is due. This is not the time for a policy shopping-list. Providing some immediate proposals for growth – a temporary reduction in VAT, a national insurance holiday for small businesses taking on extra workers – whilst leaving out long-term specifics in favour of a broad, value-based argument, seems a prudent approach this early into Opposition.

We also now know the direction Miliband is headed: towards a new capitalism where reward is linked to effort, where “producers” – businesses who “train, invest, invent, sell” – are favoured over “predators” – those only interested in a “fast buck”. This idea of “something-for-something”, he said, should extend right from the finance industry down to benefit claimants. He probably surprised a few people when he said, “We must never excuse people who cheat the welfare system”.

The Daily Mail, of all papers, reflected the likely popularity of this central message: “After a decade of New Labour’s profligate welfarism and smooching to fast-buck millionaires, the Mail welcomes the new leader’s about-turn”. Miliband may have unexpectedly pipped Cameron on responsibility by castigating in equal measure both the greedy rich and the benefit-cheating poor, allowing him to stand up for the “hard-working majority” facing a “quiet crisis” in between – people “who don't make a fuss, who don't hack phones, loot shops, fiddle their expenses, or earn telephone number salaries at the banks”.

But whilst setting out such an ambitious economic and societal vision in defence of the 'squeezed middle' is admirably bold, the much harder task is fleshing out a policy road map to achieve it.

Doing so boils down to the most significant line that wasn’t in Miliband’s speech, but certainly should have been: “Spending is not going to be the way we achieve social justice in the next decade”, he told the Today programme on Wednesday.

But if not increased ‘investment’, then what? His answer to that conundrum will largely determine his success or otherwise as leader of the Labour Party. By claiming that social justice requires nothing less than a fundamental reshaping of our entire economy – alongside the stringent fiscal discipline he also committed to – has Miliband set his standards too high?

His big answer so far centres upon changing “the rules of the game”, by tinkering with regulation, taxation and government contracting to favour ‘good’ businesses over predatory “asset strippers”. But that theme, at least for now, is too messy and ill-thought out to gain traction amongst voters. After his speech no one could work out what it would mean in practice.

The press reaction also showed this is where Miliband is most dangerously open to ‘Red Ed’ accusations. Does he intend the state to make lofty moral judgements upon every business in town? He doesn’t, but that’s how it appeared. The day after his speech, Miliband was at pains to make clear that his speech was not anti-business; it was “anti-business as usual”.

Meanwhile, we know he wants to “tear up the rule book”, but how, for example, does Miliband intend to provide high-quality, accountable public services with less money? Voters care more about good services than ‘good vs. bad’ businesses. Labour MP Stella Creasy argues that Labour should renew its mission “to build public services around users, not providers”, and become “the party of value for money”. Her party leader’s rhetoric could certainly benefit from such themes.

So where does this all leave Ed Miliband? Free-market fundamentalism ruled the roost for thirty years, remaining at the core of Blair and Brown’s New Labour project long after Thatcher and Major had gone. In 2008, the greed and irresponsibility it spawned brought the world economy to its knees, and the rest of us crashing down with it. We now need a new, fairer capitalism that more closely links desert to reward. Despite its lack of clarity in delivery, that was the crux of Miliband’s message on Tuesday. I’d venture to say most voters would agree with it.

But it is a mark of the uphill struggle Miliband will face that so many in the media still consider the idea controversial, or “socialist”. Blairites in his own party will no doubt hang their heads in dismay.

They forget that the UK, indeed the world, has changed. Without clear, attractive policies to back it up, Miliband’s bold vision will ultimately amount to nothing. But he may be closer to the fresh turf of the new political middle ground than many assume.

Sam Boyd graduated from the University of Manchester last year with a degree in History and Politics

Another economic crisis looms, but can the Tories still smell a majority in 2015?

2011-09-24T18:08:00.003+01:00

After nearly 18 months of the Coalition, the UK is in the midst of a disastrous economic period with no end in sight. But Labour remains distrusted on all matters economic and unable to seize the political initiative. Can the Tories remain quietly hopeful of a majority at the next election? The question is now more open than ever, writes Sam Boyd.

Things haven’t got any better since the onset of austerity. They’ve got worse. A global crisis may well be looming, but the UK has still grown more slowly in the last year than every other EU country apart from Portugal and Romania. After the starkest fall in household incomes since 1981 this April, living standards are set to sink a further 6-10% by 2013.

When GDP growth reached the pre-recession level of 1.1% in the second quarter of 2010, the OBR predicted a further 2.6% expansion in 2011. But growth is now virtually non-existent: 0.5% and 0.2% in the last two quarters, and not a flake of snow in sight. The IMF has again revised its UK projection down to 1.1% for the year, warning it would be “wise” to “develop contingency plans”.

Meanwhile, unemployment went up another 80,000 in the three months to July to 2.5 million, the biggest jump for two years. One in six young people are now not in education, employment or training. As widely predicted last year, the private sector has been unable to fill the employment void created by mass public sector lay-offs – for every two jobs being cut in the public sector, less than one is created by private businesses. Consumer confidence is far worse now than it was a year ago, killing off any prospect of the country spending its way out of trouble.

The head of the IMF is unequivocal: “slamming on the brakes too quickly will hurt the recovery and worsen job prospects”. It has already happened. Osborne, backed by Clegg and Danny Alexander, nonetheless storm on. "Britain will stick to the deficit plans we have set out", he says. It is “the rock of stability on which our economy is built”.

Yet, has ‘Plan A-plus’ belatedly emerged? The BBC reported on Wednesday that ministers are discussing injecting an extra £5bn into the economy through capital spending projects, “without abandoning their deficit reduction strategy”. It’s unclear how that circle could be squared, and in any case the government has denied the claims, but investing in infrastructure projects would at least imply a recognition that the deficit will not go away without growth, and that the current approach isn’t providing any.

A newly found £12bn black hole in the public finances suggests it is increasingly unlikely that the Coalition will meet their key economic pledge of eliminating the structural deficit within this Parliament. Achieving it now, according to the FT, would require the equivalent of raising VAT from 20% to 22.5%. The Tories can probably give up any hope of a rosier economic picture come the 2015 election, much less any pre-election tax-cut sweetener they might have hoped to dish out.

Osborne, though, appears unwilling to consider even slowing down now he is this far down the road of all-out austerity, despite the agenda's clear stranglehold on the recovery. But the economic consequences for the country and the political ramifications for his party could be far worse if he simply carries on regardless.

Meanwhile, despite continued economic stagnation, 33% in a recent Ipsos MORI/Reuters poll thought the Conservatives have the best policies for the economy compared to 23% for Labour - a 7% wider gap than four months ago.

This will rightly concern the Labour Party. Dan Hodges on the New Statesman blog even called for Ed Balls to be sacked as shadow chancellor and for Miliband to abandon the “failed strategy of a failed manifesto”.

But although Labour’s economic credibility is at a desperate low, the Coalition’s is hardly glowing: in another new poll only 4% thought the Coalition is managing the economy “very well”. 29% thought “fairly badly” and 27% “very badly”. What’s more, the most severe effects of the recession and spending cuts on UK living standards have “only just begun to be felt”, according to an IMF report.

Attitudes towards the government’s economic policies will no doubt deteriorate drastically as the squeeze on incomes becomes more acute and widespread. This won’t solve Labour’s credibility problem, but it will certainly help level the playing field.

Of even greater consequence would be a double dip recession and a new economic crisis, suddenly a very real prospect given recent market tremors. A leading article in the influential right-leaning Spectator magazine this week is particularly candid: “if Britain is plunged into a fresh economic crisis”, it reads, “David Cameron will be lucky to survive it.”

Indeed, the Coalition’s favoured tactic of blaming the last government will appear more and more absurd if economic performance continues to go backwards more than a year after they assumed power. Conversely, Labour will be in an increasingly strong position to demonstrate its consistent opposition to Osborne’s ‘reckless’ economic agenda from the start, arguing that it needlessly choked off prospects of growth and contributed to the cost of living crisis faced by hard-working families.

But without something more concrete from Labour, many voters are likely to remain deeply sceptical of the party’s ability to manage an economy – however grave the country’s finances in 2015. For this reason the premiership is unlikely to simply fall into Ed Miliband’s lap in four years time.

Yet, if Miliband can set out a broad narrative for growth that focuses on the plight of the ‘squeezed middle’, if he can offer a vision of a fairer, more equitable capitalism than the destructiveness wrought by unrestrained neoliberalism with which the Tories still place their faith, then the tide may soon turn his way on the economy. But without such an offer, Cameron might yet oversee another avoidable financial crisis and still emerge victorious in 2015.

Sam Boyd graduated from the University of Manchester last year with a degree in History and Politics

What do you think? Comment below or Become a Contributor and have your own articles published

The Met ought to be careful what it wishes for

2011-09-23T18:27:00.005+01:00

It is vital that we do not act as if we are exactly the same as America when it comes to fighting crime, writes Oliver Hudson.

Crime and its causes, have understandably of late, become a topic of immense intrigue and debate in Britain. In the wake of this summer’s events, there has been a conspicuous proliferation in calls for the adoption of a zero-policy approach, with America repeatedly being cited as an example of supposed good practice and indeed of the principles to which our government and our police force should adhere to in their efforts to tackle crime.

The government and Metropolitan Police however, wouldn’t be sensible to abandon their comparisons with the crime fighting policies of the United States and the manner in which we ought to contend with crime on our streets, but should instead seek to understand the ways in which we perhaps ought not to go about doing so.

When the newly-appointed commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Bernard Hogan-Howe spoke earlier this month of the need to declare ‘war on crime’, his rhetoric carried with it faint yet poignant echoes of a speech made by Ronald Reagan in 1982, in which the then President of the United States outlined his implacable determination and commitment to win what he described as ‘the war on drugs’.

Reagan’s words were to form the basis of the United States' policy for tackling the drugs endemic which has to an extent continued to plague some parts of America to this day. The Republican president believed that the only means through which his country could see an end to this ill of society was through a zero-tolerance approach to drugs policy; to meet the force of the drugs trade with the greater force of the state.

Indeed, Reagan’s policy of waging a ‘war on drugs’ has been subject to intense controversy throughout its tenure. It remains unclear as to the true impact of this policy, yet there is nonetheless much to suggest that America has been predominantly unsuccessful in its attempts to quash the illegal drugs trade for good. Whilst it can be said that there was some success in reducing the numbers of illicit drug users from its 1979 peak, there exist some worrying trends in American society, predominantly those of the rising numbers of teenagers and young adults engaging in drug use.

Whilst Reagan’s policy of zero-tolerance exerted a degree of influence in the short term, the manner in which this policy ostracised drug users and robbed them of any small feeling of self worth which they may have had has done little more than to suppress the real societal issues which will almost inevitably surface in the not-so-distant future in some form, be it drug abuse or violent crime.

You may perhaps be concerned as to the relevance of this aside. Its relevance however has been all too apparent in the rhetoric of both Cameron’s Conservatives and the Metropolitan police during this past month or so.

In the immediate aftermath of the riots, the ubiquity of ill-conceived, anger fuelled talk of meeting force with force and the like could be expected. What is however more concerning is the nature in which this transient public anger was seen to coincide with the selection of the new head of the Metropolitan Police, insofar as the government resolved that the new commissioner must be in favour of hard-line tactics as opposed to intelligent, effective methods of reducing crime on our streets.

This was perceptible in the language of Bernard Hogan-Howe as he spoke of the force’s determination to ensure that no means of law enforcement could be deemed out of bounds in this crusade against crime, a precedent which ostensibly seems rather frightening.

It would thus seem as though we have now a problem of our own making. The government has done what no government should ever do, that being to decide policy and make key decisions off the back of often transient public anger. The simple truth is, we are not America. We have never, and hopefully shall never endorse a means of policing which favours brute force and the use of firearms over one which respects individual liberty and the value of a calm approach. Whilst it is often forgotten under mountains of populist, often staunchly right-wing hype, we must remember that we have witnessed a trend of decreasing levels of crime in this country in recent times. It is therefore imperative that we do not allow ourselves to be deceived by isolated events which are inevitable, such as we witnessed this summer.

The government and the Metropolitan Police have made a profound mistake. If we are to treat what was witnessed this summer as being symptomatic of organised crime as a whole as Cameron had initially claimed, then we risk creating a problem which does not exist to the extent we have convinced ourselves it does. If we are to adopt as Hogan-Howe has suggested, a crime policy which has this notion of ‘war’ at heart, then we risk doing as Reagan did in America, that being to suppress an issue through force, whilst encumbering any chances of understanding and tackling the important issues which lie at the heart of the actions of such disillusioned individuals.

We are not America, thus we do not share America’s problems. It is vital that we do not act as if we are, or else we shall live to regret it.

Oliver Hudson is going into his last year of GCSE study

What do you think? Comment below or Become a Contributor and have your own articles published

Success for Politics Student in the Total Politics Blog Awards 2011

2011-09-22T10:44:00.004+01:00

Politics Student is pleased to inform our readers of our recent success at the Total Politics Blog Awards. We managed to achieve 17th place in the Non-Aligned section, and perhaps more impressively, secured a firm position in the UK's Top 100 Political Blogs by taking the 80th spot.

This represents a fantastic achievement considering we have been operating for less than a year in our current form. Indeed, a look at the results would appear to show that we are in the Top 20 so far as 'new' blogs are concerned.

To put the result into context, our 17th place result in the Non-Aligned list positioned us only two places below the international operation which is the Huffingdon Post, and only 7 places below the BBC's Nick Robinson. Finally, our finish in the overall rankings confirmed Politics Student as the leading multi-political group blog within the student and young professionals field.

We would like to thank our brilliant contributors for their many articles over the past year, and of course our readers who voted for us.

Robert Smith is the editor of Politics Student