Banished at the Border: Retreating from Human Rights

The Political Hot Potato; The Treatment of Asylum Seekers.
Well, George Osborne may potentially have caused the unemployment of 490,000 people...
But at least you're not Sylvia...

"Sylvia first arrived at the Refugee Council aged 19, she was extremely distressed and confused. She had been living in a refugee camp in Burundi for many years after her entire family was killed in the civil war. The refugee camp was raided and Sylvia was detained, where she was repeatedly raped and tortured. As a result of her trauma, she suffered from vomiting, back pains, severe headaches and difficulty sleeping."

If you could give just £2 a month, you could...
Don't worry, I'm not here to scrounge for money but rather to ask for your time and thought...
I attended a Lecture at Lancaster University led by Linda Briskman on the violation of human rights through asylum policies and government action against asylum seekers.
This lecture could not have been more well placed for two reasons...
Firstly, the recent tragic death of Jimmy Mubenga, an asylum seeker who lost his life under the weight of three security guards on a BA Flight 77 to Angola.
"They are going to kill me..." He screamed.
Fellow passengers refused to intervene, preferring to blank the situation, most likely through the blissful world of 'Shrek' or some other this-is-great-I-don't-have-to-think-at-all movie...
Secondly, because of the Spending Review.
I think it is important to remember that although we may be in the midst of Osborne's economic crackdown, we are not running away from the horrors of war, having lost all our family within conflict. Flitting endlessly from country to country in search of asylum...

You are not one of the 353 asylum seekers who perished en route as their boat SIEV X sunk on 19th October 2001, or indeed are you one of the 77 asylum seekers dead as a result of harsh governmental asylum policies. These are just two shocking examples out of many. Of course, asylum is a worldwide issue but within this post I aim to focus mainly on Australia and the UK...

The first event was an Australian embarrassment and disaster.
In the early afternoon of October 19, 2001, the boat’s passengers, fleeing mainly from Iraq and Afghanistan, perished in international waters between Indonesia and Australia. They were travelling in a hopelessly overcrowded refugee boat, which sank while trying to reach Christmas Island.
The area was under heavy surveillance by the Australian air force and navy yet they failed to actively search for the sinking vessel, to rescue the asylum seekers aboard. As a result, 353 people died including 150 children, it was grotesquely described how "children floated on the water like petals..."
The distinct lack of action was undoubtedly a disgrace. Yet violations of human rights similar to the tragedy of SIEV X are being committed on a day to day basis in many different forms...
Asylum is a human right - this should not be forgotten.

Australian asylum policies include:

1. Indefinite Long Term Detention. Australia has 11 different detention centres, the most notorious of which is Christmas Island, whose isolated and private situation ensures asylum seekers remain as far out from the public eye as possible. Asylum Seekers are often kept in poor conditions and treated badly.

2. Temporary Protection Visas. One of the controversial problems with these is that they ban family unions between asylum seekers, causing the separation of brother and sister; children and mother.

3.Excision Legislation.

4.Offshore Processing.

5. Bribing of Indonesia. To run detention centre's on the Australian Government's behalf, to keep asylum seekers away from Australia itself.

6.Penalties for People Movers.

7.Charging for detention costs for those granted visas. Those refugees granted a visa are often forced to pay their own captivity money, often these bills are of large amounts, leaving them in high debt to the government.

As in the UK, asylum seekers also have to pass a Citizenship Test, asking seekers questions on Australian cricket that a majority of Australian citizens would not know themselves...

In 2008, Liam Byrne the previous UK Immigration Minister proudly boasted; "We're now removing an immigration offender every 8 minutes but our target is to move more and faster." Here is a classic example of the negative attitude we, like Australia, also hold. Indeed, deportation has increased from 30,000 cases in 1997 and 60,000 cases in 2007 - but is this something to be proud of?
Would you experience a feeling of pride knowing that you had been responsible for sending Sylvia back to a land wrought with civil war and where she might be hunted down and killed? Does it make you feel proud to be part of a nation who has killed 77 asylum seekers in the last year, either indirectly through suicide or directly through not providing health care when needed?

Linda Briskman identified 5 main strategies governments use to try and justify their violation of the asylum right to the public. Obviously, many of these strategies are not made obvious but rather are underlying processes, she specifically linked Australia to all 5:
1.Criminalisation and Dehumanisation. Asylum seekers are made to be seen as criminals, whereas in fact, to apply for asylum is a recognised human right. They are dehumanised whether though being assigned a number, or the neglect of their life stories. The public are made to forget many of them are fleeing from conflict or death threats as a result of political situations.
2. Resources and Disease. Having neglected the real-life stories, governments try to suggest that Asylum seekers are only seeking the country to take advantage of the high standards of living, fair enough, a minority do attempt to do this but on the whole, most are fleeing serious danger. Secondly, disease is exploited and the idea that Asylum seekers are filthy and contaminated. This is even exploited to to the extent that in some detention centres, visitors must wash their hands after leaving the company of Asylum seekers.
3. Out of Zone Belonging. Here, governments exploit the 'stranger danger' idea. Basically, they subliminally promote racism towards outsiders. This is strongest in Australia, where its secluded location successfully parallels this idea.
4. Depiction as Terrorists. This idea is strong in Australia, which is ironic especially as Australia has not yet received a major terrorist attack as both America and the UK have.
5. The Demonisation of Islam. Muslims are treated with suspicion and doubt and upon entering society are expected to become like us, casting aside their religion and traditions.


The 5 above, seem rather ironic when we think of how governments aim to reduce racism.
However, behind the scenes there is clearly a different story with countries simply aiming to take in as few Asylum seekers as possible, seeing them as an unwelcome burden.
As well as being a Scholar, Linda Briskman has also been a successful human rights activist and campaigner and so she ended the talk by suggesting her 'remedy' to help resolve the situation...

1.International Law. An International Law should be passed to help guarantee the protection of Asylum seekers, even those who are waiting to be deported again.
2. Emphasize Human instead of Border Security. Instead of just being about facts and figures, the real life stories of the Asylum Seekers need to be brought into the public view, so they are aware of the people who are being turned away.
3. Open Borders? In an ideological situation, this would be the solution. Linda favoured the view as she claimed only a small percentage of the world's population are on the move at once, personally I do not approve of this idea and she recognised that it would pose some problems and isn't a very popular solution.
4. Expenditure. If Politicians have failed to be convinced through being brought to awareness of the tragic human costs of their decisions, then perhaps the economic cost should be exploited?
5. Growth in Social Movements. Social movements should form coalitions and put pressure on the government, naturally Amnesty was mentioned as the key human rights group.

Asylum Seeking remains one of those areas where negative attitudes as a result of ignorance prevails.
As a responsible, democratic country, we should be more open to those in need. I accept that we cannot take everyone - we simply don't have the resources. But even those who will have to be deported should be better cared for whilst it is important the negative stereotypes are eliminated so those who are free to stay can lead the simple, ordinary life that they yearn.

"After initially refusing Sylvia's asylum application, the Home Office eventually recognised her as a refugee. The Refugee Council found Sylvia a place on an English and Computer Course and organised a work placement for her so that she could gain office experience. Sylvia hopes one day to manage her own business..."

This is the type of care we should strive to achieve.
Remember - Asylum is a Human Right.

It's controversial. It's complicated. It's sensitive... It's the Spending Review.

"He needed to understand that Daddy might not always be very popular, and that there might be people who don't like Daddy, or the things he has to say. He might even hear it at school, but he's not to worry about it." ~ George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Oh! The terrible pain when a Father has to tell his eight year old son that he is about to make 490,000 public sector workers redundant...

I will admit that because of the three reasons stated in the title above, I was considering trying to attempt to blissfully ignore the announcement of the spending review within my blog. However, I then realised that although it may be easier to ignore the spending review; it would be a political disgrace on my behalf.

I therefore attempt to analyse aspects of the Spending Review;  in the words of the Right Honourable Danny Alexander MP "not because it is easy, but because it is right". A phrase he used to defend his involvement in implementing the many cuts contained within the review at the Liberal Democrat Conference.

George Osborne began by reminding us, that as a country, we have the largest structural deficit in Europe at £109bn. Whether you blame Labour or not, this means each year, the country is paying £43bn in debt interest. Each day that is more than £100m spent on servicing our debt; enough to build a Primary School every hour.
To carry on like this would simply be unsustainable.

The predominantly Labour-pro media were always going to exaggerate the apparent 'horrors' of this Spending Review but undoubtedly the loss of 490,000 jobs over 4 years will have a damaging, catastrophic, social and economic impact. However, we have to think about the long term.

Would it really be fair to leave the growing debt, we are responsible for, for future generations to solve?
I am sure the majority would agree that no, it is not. The cuts need to happen. It is the speed and the extent of these cuts which is to be debated.

A 19% average cut (which was considerably lower than the 25% cut expected) will be made across the 4 year length of the budget. He has also sensibly decided to exclude certain departments from the 'brutal' cuts; most noticeably Education, Health and International Development.

The Education Department has been allocated an annual budget of £57.6bn, this is the second largest budget. The Review will see a 3.4% real term fall over 4 years and the abolition of 5 Quangos but direct funding to schools will be protected with budgets rising from £35bn to £39bn.

As a Lib Dem, it was particularly pleasing to see that a Pupil Premium of £2.5bn will be implemented for teaching disadvantaged pupils; a key Lib Dem manifesto pledge. Osborne also announced that 15hrs of free early education and care for 2 year olds, would also be offered to those from poorer households.
Clearly, education on the whole has thrived from this Spending Review.
 However, I still fail to understand why we are wasting £1.3bn on the Academies Scheme which simply makes the elite schools the uber elite... But I have ranted sufficiently over this on a previous post...

Health care will also be protected from cuts and has been allocated a budget of £106.4bn - the largest budget of all the departments. The NHS will receive a 1.3% real term rise in funding by 2015 and an extra £2bn will be provided for social care by 2014-2015. A new cancer drug fund will be provided and the budget will rise above inflation each year from £104bn this year to £114bn over the next 4 years.

This year's International Development budget has been set at £7.7bn, this is due to rise to £11.5bn over the next 4 years to meet UN aid commitments. All overseas aid budgets have been protected from cuts except for aid to China and Russia which has been stopped entirely.

However, other departments haven't been so lucky...

The Business, Innovation and Skills department has been allocated a budget of £21.2bn with an annual cut of 7.1%. For me, this is perhaps one of the cuts I find most worrying, partly through personal interest but also in terms of the public interest. The department is key in providing the facilities, skills and research which help boost our economy through employment and education.

However, Osborne has promised that there will be funding for 75,000 adult apprenticeships and thankfully the Science Budget has been frozen; instead of cut as feared.

There is of course The Browne report taking place into reforming tuition fees.
Much of this report I can agree with e.g. making students pay according to their income following University. If you go on to a high income job as a result of University, of course you should contribute more to the cost than someone who received a low income job. The calamity is of course taking the cap off tuition fees. It would be completely unfair to remove the cap as naturally the more prestigious Universities e.g. Oxford or Cambridge will take advantage of their excellent reputation by making students pay higher fees to attend the University meaning students from relatively poorer backgrounds would be disadvantaged.

The Cabinet Office faces a £55m cut in budget.
The Queen will also be practicing her patriotic duty; the Civil List funding will be frozen next year and the total Royal Household Spending will fall by 14% from 2012-2013. This would suggest we really are all in this together! However, she is temporarily taking £1m to fund her Diamond Jubilee - is this really necessary, would a trip to the cinema to celebrate not suffice?

Within my household, the big worry has been the Communities and Local Government Budget.
The Budget has been set at £33.6bn with a fall per annum of 7.1% which may naturally lead to the unemployment of council staff. However, changed rental agreements and the aim to build 150,000 new affordable homes add a brighter tone to this budget.

The Army will lose 7000 jobs.
The RAF and Navy will lose 5000 jobs each.
And the MOD will lose 25,000 civilian staff.
Yet still we seem to be fighting a seemingly 'checkmate' war in Afghanistan which is costing us billions to run each year...
The Defence Department will face cuts of 8% over the next 4 years and has been allocated a budget of £46.1bn. The Harrier Jump Jets and Ark Royal Aircraft are to be axed alongside the planned Nimrod spy planes, whilst the spending decision on Trident is to be delayed until 2016.

In amongst the 'doom and gloom' there is some good news, especially for fellow Lib Dems...
£1bn in funding has been set aside to start a Green Investment Bank; this is a key idea straight from the manifesto of the Lib Dems. Also, within the Energy and Climate Change Department, £200m in funding has been set aside for Wind Power development. However, the 5% annual budget cut means that the Tidal Barrage on the Severn Estuary has been scrapped.

During this year's election, do you remember the vital word?
FRONTLINE SERVICES.
So, we've had the health care and education, now time to look at policing...
The Home Office budget has been set at £10.2bn with a cut of 6% per annum. This has resulted in a 4% cut to the Police Budget however, it has been stressed that these cuts are focused on the bureaucracy rather than front line services - let's hope they are right...

And the criminals?
The plan for a new 1500 place prison to be built has been scrapped and it has been estimated that 3000 fewer prison places are to be expected by 2015.
However, there will be a £1.3bn capital investment in prison estate helping ensure we have a more efficient juridical system with fewer re-offenders.

The Transport Budget is due to fall by 21% over 4 years, which is perhaps amongst the highest cuts in budgets. However, the department will receive £30bn for capital spending, including £500m for Tyne Wear Metro and Tees Valley bus network. The cross rail project is to go ahead in London and £14bn is to be spent on improving railways.

The Treasury has the highest budget cut, aiming to cut its budget by 33% over the next 4 years.
The Banking Levy will be made permanent, £900m will be put towards targeting tax evasion and £1.5bn will be given in compensation to the Equitable Life Policyholders who were hit by near collapse. There will also be a 15% cut in funding for revenue and customs.

The streets today were filled with middle aged grumbles, as it was announced the state pension age would reach 66 by 2020 and that there would be a reform of public pensions to save £1.8bn by 2015, with employees likely to contribute more. However, for the lucky few already there; the Winter fuel allowance, free bus passes and TV licenses for the 75+ will all be kept.
Cuts will be made to child benefits for higher rate tax payers to generate £2.5bn (hooray!) and couples on working tax credits must work 24hrs between them. It was also announced that a further £7bn in welfare savings have been planned, on top of the £11bn already announced.
And finally, a 12 month time limit has been implemented for the one million people on employment and support allowance; find work... or face a benefit cut.

Nick Clegg has described the review as being "thoroughly a coalition product" whilst the IFS have described its as being "more regressive than progressive". Clearly, there is some debate as to the success of the Spending Review. Only one thing can be for sure; only time will tell...

P.S. I would briefly like to apologise that this post is rather factual.
I personally don't feel informed enough to fully understand the impact of the Spending Review and so have refrained from voicing my opinion as much as possible, as I would not want to base it on inadequate or false reason. I would appreciate any comments or debate as to whether the Spending Review has been a success or not and am always willing to listen and analyse other people's viewpoints.

Pretty Good for a Tory...

As one conference closes, another opens...

David Cameron strode into the Conservative Conference in his usual, striking, arrogant confidence; the pure arrogance, when you can almost see "born to rule" self inscribed across his forehead...

This was of course his first appearance at Conference as Prime Minister but little did he know that several days later he would be facing the fury of his own supporters...

By Wednesday, he would be mauled by his own party;
Time to feel the aggressive wrath of the rich, stay-at-home mothers...

It would appear the slashing of child benefits to those within the top 15% of families on highest income (a.k.a the filthy rich) has caused quite a fuss...
I wonder why?
Oh yes, because half of the Tories are the filthy rich, whilst the other 50% at least like to think they are...

For once, the Tory plans protect the poor over the rich; a rare and unusual occurance.
My advice is; make the most of it.
I had to read the article in the Guardian twice, for the concept of such an occasion to actually sink in...
It has to be said Osborne; pretty good for a Tory.
But for the Tories, the policy has provoked controversy and division...

The slashing of child benefits, in this way, will successfully raise £1bn towards George Osborne's plans to cut Britain's £149bn deficit within the five year lifespan of the coalition.

But by Wednesday, as Mr. Cameron left what should have been a celebratory rally, he had been effectively hung, drawn and quartered by his own party members and his reputation for being 'cool under fire' had been ruined...

Personally, as a Lib Dem and so supporting fairness, I completely support the cuts to those families where one parent earns over £44,000 - why should rich mothers be paid to stay at home whilst the social services struggle to cater for those who are mentally ill or disabled? Why should they be paid to lounge around when Britain has one of the largest deficits in Europe, that needs to be cut?

What a shame...
Some filthy rich Tory family won't be able to afford the brand new BMW they've always wanted...
Ever heard of a Peugeot?

So these cuts...
For once, excluding all other policies and values; I could almost be a Tory, and be proud to be a Tory...

...And believe me; that's saying something.

100 Days of Coalition...

So whilst on the whole, it appears the Canary-Yellow Bird is reasonably happy sitting within the clutches branches of the Green-Blue Tree, it would appear the real problems are occurring amongst the Tory party itself...

"A Blazing, Shouting, Grade-A Row" hit Whitehall as George Osbourne told Iain Duncan Smith he would have to find around £5 of savings for every £1 he spends on his welfare reform plans.

Iain Duncan Smith, Welfare Secretary and Former Tory Leader, aims to simplify the benefits system and create incentives to work. Although his reforms are expected to save money in the long term, he requires a £3bn initial start up cost to fund his radical plans.

£3bn which Osbourne originally refused to give.

Since the exposure of the row, George Osbourne has refused to admit that he and the former Tory leader have been involved in the rumoured tense disputes; describing the welfare reform as the "fundamentally progressive and fair thing to do" but described it as a "complex operation".

But allegedly, David Cameron himself had to step in on the behalf of Iain Duncan Smith at a meeting at Chequers.
As otherwise, there were fears that IDS might resign or use his influential role as former party leader to rally backbenchers against the Chancellor - potentially a huge blow for the stability of the Coalition. So the Treasury have agreed IDS can have the money, providing he could produce savings from elsewhere.


Presently, it would seem the "blaze" has been extinguished but perhaps over the next five years we will see this old rift rekindled...

The New Lib Dem Party Anthem?: We're on a Highway to Hell...

"This is the first time a Liberal leader has stood at this dispatch box since Lloyd George in 1922."

As Clegg announces this from the unfamiliar territory of the dispatch box, the Chancellor, George Osbourne wears that all too familiar smug Tory-look which seems even more exuberant than usual...

'And after this five years of Tory hell it will be at least another 92 years until you stand there again...'

- Perhaps that's why.

Support for the Liberal Democrats has slumped to an all time low of a mere 16% since the beginning of the general election as voters feel the Lib Dems have lost their voice within the coalition government.
Whilst, it is feared almost a third (17/57) of the Lib Dem seats in Parliament could be at risk in the 2015 election as Labour support begins to recover.
Furthermore, the seats under threat include those of the Deputy Leader (Simon Hughes) and the Energy and Climate Change Secretary (Chris Huhne).

However, I think many Lib Dem supporters were simply expecting too much from the Lib Dems.
A coaliton was always going to involve comprimise and the Lib Dems were always going to have to give up more being the smaller party.

But Liberal progress in government has been made;
There will be a referendum on fairer votes (May 5th), Labour's ID card scheme will be scrapped, a Freedom Bill will be introduced, the Income Tax threshold will be raised by £1000 and a Bank Levy will be introduced; these are just a few of the major changes the Lib Dems have helped bring about within the Coalition.

In the words of Clegg, I still hope and believe "that this country will be more fair, more free and more liberal in 2015 as a result of us being part of government", and deserters must remember that ANYTHING is better than an all Tory government.

Just for the record, I can't stand ACDC but it does seem as though the coalition government could be the Lib Dems downfall if support continues to fall and therefore "I'm on a Highway to Hell..." springs to mind...

Just 17 days in....

The Coalition has met it's first hurdle; David Laws.


It's the 29th May 2010.
And the Chief Secretary of the Treasury; David Laws has resigned, after admitting he claimed £40,000 in expenses to pay rent to his partner.
Already I can hear the Tory back benchers laughing...

The occurance has caused great embarassment for the Liberal Democrats who had taken high moral ground on the expenses catastrophe, arguing they were in a better position than the Tories and Labour after the uncovering of expenses in 2009.

Not only has the crisis bestowed embarassment upon the Lib Dems, but also the loss of a key member of the cabinet described as "exceptionally abled" by Vince Cable the Business Secretary and "good" and "honourable" by the Leader of the Tories and Prime Minister; David Cameron.

Although this situation has no doubt weakened our Cabinet's infrastructure with David Laws being replaced by the 'slightly less experienced' Danny Alexander, it has also shown the strength of this coalition - here we have a Conservative calling a Lib Dem "good" and "honourable".
The Leader of the Tories to be precise.

Have we really reached 'new politics'?

The Conservative and Liberal Coalition has been an incredibly exciting moment in British Political History and has certainly defaced 'ancient politics'.

However, how close are we really to 'new politics'?

Surprisingly, we are relatively backwards when it comes to politics compared to many of the developed countries around the world.

Just 3 years ago, in 2007 there were 31million women in the UK compared to 29million men.
Just 3 days ago, only 4 women compared to 25 men were appointed Cabinet ministers = 14%.
How is that 14% supposed to represent the 51.6% of the UK population that are women?

It is quite frankly embarrassing.

Just 34km away and the French have made much better progress with 33% of the seats in their cabinet equivalent being held by women.
In Germany; 36%, Sweden; 50% and Spain 53%.

We are supposedly on similar development levels to these countries but instead we continue to have a Cabinet overrun by white, middle class men farmed in independent, private schools such as Eton and processed through Oxbridge.

Fair enough, many of these members may be intelligent and suited for the job. But at the same time the Cabinet needs to be severely 'diversified'.

David Cameron, Nick Clegg, George Osbourne and Vince Cable; four key players in the Cabinet; all belong to unnervingly similar backgrounds meaning they only cover a narrow social perspective between them. How will they understand how people feel?

Baroness Warsi became the first female, Muslim Cabinet minister in this election. A sign we are making progress - progress which should have happened much earlier in British political history.

How can we lead the way for a free and equal democracy in LEDCs when our own country does not successfully portray this?