The Official Liberal Announcement: KEEP CALM and CARRY ON ?

You'd have to be a hermit of the St.Ossian scale not to have heard about the turmoil of tuition fees...

And now it is the eve of the vote. The spotlight is on.
So, what should the Liberal Democrats do?

1. The Vote Yes Campaign:
So, Clegg and Cable are frantically urging Lib Dem rebels to 'walk through the fire' and support the proposal. And it has been announced, by Clegg himself that all 17 Lib Dem Ministers will vote for the proposals. Obviously, one should do this if he/she believes the proposals will indeed create a 'significantly fairer and more progressive new system', and disregards U-Turning on a key manifesto promise as being a betrayal.

2. Abstain?
Splits weaken parties and sometimes destroy them.
Support for the Liberal Democrats is being undermined, as the impression grows stronger that on the issue of tuition fees we are not only divided but clueless.
This is the argument that, the real damage to the party comes not from adjusting our course as a result of changed conditions, nor from rebellion by backbenchers on grounds of individual conscience, but from the impression we are now giving of being all over the place. Both abstaining and deferring the vote do just that.

Chris Davies, Liberal Democrat MEP (North West) describes how...

"In short, we are creating the impression not just of being weak, but of being a joke. I would rather us have a reputation for being tough (but fair) bastards than for being indecisive."

So, this argument looks to the fact that, if Liberal Democrats want to limit the damage done, there should be only two options for them to consider. Either they vote for the recommendations, or they vote against on grounds of individual conscience.

There is also the fact that abstaining, in this situation, is essentially the nice way of voting for the proposals. ven if all the Lib Dems abstained, the Tory majority would pull the vote through. Abstaining here is pointless and as proven above, signifies weakness to the Lib Dem image.

3. Rejection
They say no-one likes rejection but for once this seems to be untrue.
There was another protest in Lancaster today.
A majority of the public seem to be in uproar. And seeing as politicians are meant to reflect the views of the public, surely this is the sensible option?

Personally I believe, agreeing to the Browne Report, increasing tuition fees, not only by a bit but a ludicrous amount, is one compromise too far. The Browne Report does shine in the fact that it holds specific policies aiming to protect and encourage the poor to attend Universities but this conflicts with the huge increase in tuition fees, meaning now, even those of the middle class will struggle to pay off their debts.
Disillusioned Lib Dem supporters already feel betrayed by the government's involvement with the Tories and the increase in tuition fees does little to encourage disillusioned Lib Dems that the party is still a seperate, independent force within the coalition. Not simply, the majority makers.

Currently, it would appear around 20 Lib Dem MPs intend to vote against the proposals. This isn't good enough.
Here, twenty isn't plenty.
Tomorrow spells complete humiliation.

"Just because you don't take an interest in politics, it doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you."

At least, Pericles believed so in 430B.C and I believe so now.
And finally, it would appear that the general public are realising the reality of this statement.

"What's the point in politics, it's boring, pointless and doesn't affect me."

It has been rather amusing to see the ignorance of individuals come crashing down, for them to suddenly be plunged into panic, thrown into the frenzy of numerous protests and, God help them, become politically active...

Pericles must be laughing in his grave...

Although, sadly, it would appear at my school this enlightenment is limited, self centered and poorly informed.

Will I lose my EMA?
How will the rise in tuition fees affect me?

Obviously, it is natural to care more about the issues that will affect oneself, as that is the selfish instinct of human nature although some interest is better than none.
However, perhaps if people had a broader political knowledge in the first place they would understand the situation better and perhaps we would not even be in the current situation.

I.e. My parents vote Conservative is not a valid reason for supporting the Conservatives alone.

So, what about Tuition Fees...?

As a Liberal Democrat, I find the proposed changes simply inexcusable.
The Browne Report has many positive points, but these are obscured by the suffocating black mark of the rise in tuition fees - and rightly so. It is humiliating to be a Lib Dem at the moment.

"Say no to tuition fees."

That aim, has now become a distant dream of the Liberal memory, as much as Asquith and the grip of ‘Cleggmania’ during the General Election have become.
The appalling U-Turn on tuition fees was the final push, the acceptance of my status as not a Lib Dem but a disillusioned Lib Dem; I still hold the belief that the 2010 manifesto was, on the whole, an innovative, progressive masterpiece yet I am struggling to support, defend and agree with the recent actions of the party within coalition. I always knew there would be compromises but a line has to be drawn somewhere.

Admittedly, scrapping tuition fees altogether within the current economic climate was perhaps rather too idealistic.
However, a promise was made and if the promise cannot be kept, the Lib Dems should certainly feel obliged to prevent the complete opposite from occurring.
Abolishing the cap on tuition fees was just that – the opposite.

Thankfully, that aspect of the Browne report has been altered, nevertheless current plans aim to implement a basic threshold cap of £6000 and an absolute limit of £9000 per annum.

This is both outrageously insane, insanely outrageous and outrageously high.

The result will be a crippling 30-year debt trap for graduates, a decline in the numbers attending Universities and in a typically loathsome Tory-type fashion; the favouring of the rich over the poor.

The new basic threshold of £6,000 is almost double the current fee of £3,290 that students pay each year, that's £17,210 per year or £51,630 over three years. The maximum government loan is likely to be £43,500 and the interest rate would be inflation plus 2.2%...

Any graduate earning over £21,000 a year would be losing 45p for every £1 they earn, how is this fair?

This will be a shattering blow to the 'knowledge economy' which will fuel England's economic future. A devastating blow to the Liberal Democrats. And a humiliating betrayal by Liberal Democrat cabinet ministers, in particular Business Secretary, Vince Cable who helped write the proposals.

Students nationwide have embraced their revolutionary spirit, indeed even here, within the sleepy town of Lancaster.
However, even if all the Lib Dems abstain, the small Tory majority will ensure the bill will be passed.
The only hope is that, as Tim Farron has promised, other Lib Dem MPs will join Farron, see sense and outright reject the proposal; perhaps, damaging the coalition but more importantly protecting the generations of the future.
Sadly, this seems highly unlikely.

Will EMA be scrapped?
Yes and No.
You see, if you only listen to the deafening drone of the media then you will believe that yes, EMA is being completely scrapped and thousands of helpless teenagers are going to be plunged into an all consuming writhing pit of poverty.
BUT, if you read the official Comprehensive Spending Review Green Paper, it says this:

"The Spending Review will replace EMA with a locally managed discretionary fund to target support, which will focus the support currently provided by EMA on the most disadvantaged children."

Replacement is not the same as complete destruction.
Instead, the enhanced learner support fund will be introduced...

"Decisions about which young people should receive financial support from the Discretionary Learner Support Fund will be made by schools, colleges and training organisations, who are in a better position than Government to determine the needs of individual students. They will target support to those young people who most need it to continue in learning.£26 million has been invested in 2010-11 in a discretionary learner support fund. With the ending of the EMA, this fund will be increased. We anticipate that in 2014-15 this enhanced fund will be three times greater than current funds."

Evidence and recent research suggests that around 90% of current recipients of EMA would have stayed on at school after the age of 16 even if they did not receive EMA, therefore this system is not affordable in the current economic climate.

Instead, the government hopes the new scheme will be more efficient. To achieve this schools and colleges will administer the funds. They know the young person on a personal level and so are better placed, compared to the distant force of government. It will also enable the school more power to remove the funds should a pupil misbehave or lack attendance.

What exactly the enhanced learner support funds will mean on an individual level remains a grey area as schools, pupils and parents remain in waiting for more details from the coalition government.

Receiving £30 of EMA a week myself, I have personally greatly benefited from the allowance as it funds travel, clothing and equipment for school. I am therefore concerned as to what the new scheme will bring, for instance it is not clear as to whether it will take the form of a frequent payment (e.g. weekly or monthly) or whether it will rather be one-off contributions towards school trips e.t.c. or whether I will even qualify for the new scheme.

However, I will admit that in the absence of EMA, it is highly likely that I would have continued in education, although perhaps not as comfortably.

Therefore I can see the sense in introducing a more efficient scheme as a result of the change in the country's financial situation; cuts have to be made somewhere and I would far rather lose that £30 a week to enable the government to continue paying someone who is terminally disabled through benefits.

I guess the point of this post was to prove that politics shapes everything, now more than ever.
You cannot afford to ignore it.

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.

Another day in 'Libdemdom'...

By Sunday, I had just about got used to finding myself stood just metres away from Nick Clegg, Simon Hughes, Vince Cable or someone of equal epicness from the party...

As a result of a delayed breakfast and the added distraction of the Andrew Marr show on in the hotel lobby, I sadly missed most of the speech by Tavish Scott which I had aimed to see that morning.

Therefore, my first full session was the Consultative Session on Strategy from 10.40am-12.10pm.
Don't be fooled by the name - this was actually really interesting...
It was a discussion as to how the Lib Dems should alter their strategy to recruit support and new members following the coalition. Key points explored included:

1. We MUST separate ourselves from the Tories and reiterate that this is a coalition NOT a merge.
We can still keep our deal through passing Tory policies but show we don't necessarily agree with them. It was suggested that as Mr.Cable has done, more coalition key players need to reassure members that just because we've agreed to help pass them; we don't solidly agree with them.
There was also the idea that we need to 'shout from the rooftops' our successes in government, so the public knows who has done what. One person raised the idea of including Lib Dem achievements in editions of local focus papers; I thought this would be a particularly successful way of raising and keeping support.

2. Liberal Youth needs to be acknowledged as a vital, precious resource; the future of the party.
Liberal Youth wasn't mentioned at all within the first half of the session, I was rather concerned about this, so much so; I was considering making an intervention at half time. However, luckily I wasn't confident enough to do so as it was then focused on within the second half.

3. Activists need to be valued more.
Instead of just being handed a stack of leaflets to deliver.
Luckily, I have not experienced this as my local party have been extremely welcoming and appreciative but I can understand that this could be a problem elsewhere.

There were many other points made, but sadly I didn't take notes during this discussion - too busy listening!

After the Consultative Session, conference filled up rapidly with party members and much to my annoyance, the all consuming sprawl and chaos of the media...

Because Danny Alexander was due to make his first conference speech.
His speech centered around the cuts and he explained why they are being carried out; "Not because it is easy but because it is right."

With regards to the coalition, he described how; "One party at war with itself has been replaced by 2 united parties."And impressively pointed out how the Lib Dems have achieved key policies e.g. Increasing Capital Gains Tax and taking 900,000 low earners out of tax; all in 13 weeks. Labour had 13 years; and they failed to achieve this. He also pointed out how Labour shamefully promised money to communities when they knew there was "no money left" and how last year they spent £150 billion more than was payed by tax.

He reinforced the idea that efficiency savings alone will not solve the deficit, hence why cuts have to be made. He then proceeded to the tackling of tax avoidance and described how it was unacceptable at the best of times but now more so than ever. He therefore promised a fivefold increase in prosecutions, which would gather £7billion to help conquer the deficit.

After a truly inspiring, impressive, cleverly linked and worded speech...
He ended promising fairness was in his mind every step of the way; an outright promise to remain close to the values held as a Liberal Democrat within this coalition.

Next followed the Welsh Liberal Democrats presentation...
Much to my embarassment now; rather foolishly and in a typically English way, it had never occurred to me that Welsh Liberal Democrats even existed!
Therefore, I found this presentation particuarly interesting and informative...

Similarly to Danny Alexander, the Welsh Liberal Democrats talked about the betrayal of Labour and also Plaid Cymru through their current coalition. The coalition had promised the establishment of a daily Welsh newspaper, 6.5 thousand new homes, the recognition of Welsh as a language and to halve child poverty.
All of this hasn't yet been achieved.

Kirsty Williams, as a fairly new Leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats has been making a huge impact already; it was explained how she condemned the coalition for waste; over £1 billion in health.

Liberal Democrat achievements in Wales include:
1. A complete review of overseas investment.
2. The separation of infertility and maternity patients in hospitals.
3. Guaranteed healthy eating in schools across Wales.
4. 40% CO2 reduction target.
5. Regeneration of Swansea; including the building of a huge leisure complex.
6. Passing of the "green dragon" law, a law which promotes eco-friendly behaviour.
7. Success in education; Wrexham has been Lib Dem territory for 6 years and 47% of grades are now between A-C at GCSE as a result of education strategy.
8. The regeneration of Cardiff.

Although perhaps slightly biased, the Welsh Lib Dems described how they were bringing new hope to the people of Wales.
From their extensive list of achievements, it really does seem that way.
In many ways, their presentation was just as inspiring to that of Danny Alexander's; it was brilliant to see such dedication, enthusiasm and team spirit.

Those who spoke at the conference were:
1. Kirsty Williams (Leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats)
2.Councillor Aled Roberts (Leader of Wrexham Council)
3. Veronica German (Assembly Member for South East Wales)
4. Wyn Williams (Welsh Assembly Candidate for Montgomeryshire)

Next followed my final conference session but it was certainly a good way to end the whole experience;
Nick Clegg's Questions and Answers.
Managed to 'bagsy' some front seats, although this did have the disadvantage of media attention...
A lot of notes taken... 3.5 A4 sides to be precise!
Ideas explored included...

1. Could Nick still be trusted with the party?
Clegg replied yes and outlined some of the key Liberal Democrat policies that were being passed in government. For instance, taking 900,000 low earners out of tax, implementing a banking levy and a pupil premium. He acknowledged that the cuts weren't easy but pointed out it was unfair to leave our debt for future generations to deal with.

2. Many FE colleges are not fit for purpose, how will this be sorted?
Clegg promised the millions of pounds were to be injected into the FE budget and unlike Labour, this promise of funding would be kept. He also stressed the importance of more promotion of FE colleges as more often than not University is made to appear as the only option.

3. Pakistan Floods: Although 1.5million people have been covered by aid, this is not enough - how are the government helping?
Clegg talked of his own personal visit to the country and described how shocking it was, explaining how you cannot capture the unimaginable vastness on the small TV screens we have at home. He acknowledged that over 20million people had been displaced by the floods, a total which is equivalent to 1/3 of the UK. In response he declared that that very day the government had increased upon the £60million already issued to Pakistan to help provide temporary education and financial support for farmers.

4. When will the detention of children end?
It will end; Clegg reiterated this several times. He described how detention was only used prior to deportation, but that the government were looking for an alternate solution, describing the current system as a "barbaric" part of our asylum system.

5. Why are the Lib Dems being blamed for cuts but the Tories praised for our policies?
He pointed out that it was only 5months into a 5year parliament and therefore it was early days and that the mark is clear to see, we just need to explain. He agreed that ministers should express some dislike towards Tory policy, but obviously being in coalition can often be a very fragile situation. He then explained that we cannot cross the 't's and dot the 'i's of the Lib Dem Manifesto because we didn't win the election.

6. How can we maintain our independence within the coalition?
Clegg instantly replied with "we are left, they are right; we stand firm in our ideological views" and that you can share power but still keep your values. He described how we need to keep internal democratic debate alive and how we are currently being "beaten up by Labour pro media who are indulging themselves in the betrayal myth", whilst it is they who have betrayed the public; they didn't even have the decency to announce their planned cuts.

Regrettably, the Question and Answer session marked the 'beginning of the end' of my conference experience...

After buying a Liberal Democrat mug, one very reluctant Emma departed from conference...
The rest of Sunday and most of Monday was spent in a solitary, silent, reflective, blissful world of yellow...

Regrets?
... Perhaps not taking enough notes and not attending enough fringe events.

But it has to be said, conference was an absolute... SUCCESS.
Great experience; Great debate; Great people.

It was an honour to be surrounded by people who have the same passion for politics as me and also who share some of the same political values as fellow Liberal Democrats.
 So...
             Bring on the Spring Conference!

And when you pass security for what feels like the 100th time; it finally hits you. You're at the Liberal Democrat Conference. And we're in Government.

Conference... Conference... Conference...

"Initially daunting, then it becomes interesting...
        ...and surprisingly right wing."
 Art Malik (Actor and supporter of the Liberal Democrats) on his first experience of conference.

Daunting? Yes.
Interesting? Definitely.
Right wing? Not so sure.

This blog will differ from the usual style.
Unlike usual, I'd like to talk about my own experience; my experience as a first-timer at the Lib Dem Conference last weekend.

Saturday morning; I wasn't really sure what to expect.
Having registered in my trade mark style (on the last minute), I had only been sent a brief letter and my conference pass by post. The rest had to be collected on site.
Therefore, I really had no idea what I was letting myself in for.

As I disembarked the bus in Liverpool city centre and headed vaguely in the direction of the ACC; I started to notice strange splashes of yellow amongst the typically urban grey surroundings...
Serious looking suited persons passing by; and that glimpse of yellow again, again, again...

I am of course referring to the yellow lanyards worn by conference members. With each passing lanyard, I found myself walking faster and faster as the excitement kicked in. Eventually, having dodged people, cars, buses and protesters I found myself standing outside the ACC. After a brief salute to the Lib Dem flags outside I stepped into the chaos of the security tent.

After receiving my own precious lanyard and having got through security without any bomb scares, I then proceeded to pick up my brick sorry conference papers from the designated desk.

Bewildered, and with an hour or so to pass until Conference was formally opened, I explored the maze of stalls on the ground floor, fighting off the woman at the Womens Liberal Democrats' stall who had a worrying obsession with Eleanor Rathburn...

Eventually, it reached 2.30pm and I excitedly entered the Conference Hall. Baroness Walmsley formally opened the conference by making a short speech with as much boasting of "we're in Government now" as possible which of course, was all good stuff.

From 2.35-4.15 I intermittently sat through three different reports; The Federal Conference Committee report , The Federal Policy Committee report and finally the membership subscriptions report. To be brutally honest, these weren't exactly enthralling but perhaps this was because I was too overwhelmed by the whole concept of conference it was hard to concentrate.

Then followed a debate on 'Transactions Transparency and conflicts of interest in Government' which was interesting although hard to follow.
However, having looked back at the Agenda when at home and having studied the topic in more detail it made much more sense.

The debate looked at imposing a Civil Service Law which prevents public servants from being appointed when they are involved in (e.g. through shares) or even outright own the companies and services they are dealing with.
Another key area of concern was public servants leaving their posts to take up highly rewarded roles with suppliers or government organisations, as a result of these organisations benefiting from the decisions made by such public servants.

The debate, was fast moving and raised a number of issues for instance what exactly counts for ownership? It was pointed out that many people invested their pensions in a company, therefore, most people would be excluded.
Eventually, the idea of passing a Civil Service Law was favoured by conference and it was pointed out that it was strange that we didn't already have one as so many of our European neighbours did.

Later followed my first and most regrettably my only fringe event; The AV Rally...
The place was heaving.
This was to be expected though as of course the AV referendum is crucial to the Lib Dems as a party.
There was also the small matter that a certain Nick Clegg would be making an appearance...
Other speakers included;
Art Malik (Actor and Supporter of the Lib Dems)
Jo Swinson (Lib Dem MP)
Tim Farron (Lib Dem MP and always a good laugh!)
Martin Bell (Former Independent MP)
Pam Giddy (Leader of the Yes to AV campaign)

AV Balloons filled the air and it was rather ironic to see serious looking politicians batting them about like 5 year olds at a Mc Donald's party...
There was a good atmosphere; the rally was exciting, passionate and unifying but with a serious undertone as Nick Clegg warned coalition doubters;
"Don't let the best be the enemy of the good."
No, this isn't Proportional Representation but it's better than first past the post.
Although, personally I think anything, even a  'put your heads down and hands up' school style voting system would be more democratic that first past the post...

And that was Saturday.
I have decided to split my conference write-up into two days as I feel each day was a separate experience on a variety of different levels. For instance; Sunday was much more settled and therefore I paid more attention to the content instead of the atmosphere of the conference.

US Koran Burning...

It's repulsive.

"It is possibly time for us in a new way to actually stand up, confront terrorism," Mr Jones told reporters.
This is hypocrisy; how is the burning of the Koran, a sacred text for Muslims, not an act of religious terrorism?
Granted, it is not perhaps on the 9/11 scale but it's still an offensive act which will encourage terrorism not prevent it. Obama described the plans of Mr Jones as a "recruitment bonanza" for Al-Qaeda.

Obama also pointed out that if the burning did go ahead in Gainesville, Florida it would endanger US troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Whilst, William Hague, British foreign secretary, when asked how the burnings would affect British troops in Afghanistan replied "It certainly won't help."

It has also been suggested that it will not only be our troops who will be put at risk by the pastor's actions; Interpol has issued a global alert claiming the burning could instigate "violent attacks on innocent people". As a result of this warning, the US government has warned American tourists abroad to be careful and avoid areas where protests may take place.

Terry Jones, pastor of a small church in the sleepy town of Gainesville leads a congregation of around 50 people. He planned to hold a mass burning of Korans  to commemorate 9/11.
What was planned to be a small, local ceremony has now become a major issue on the world stage, as a result of media and political intervention.

The US government finds itself in a tricky situation; officials cannot prevent Mr Jones as intervention would be against the US constitution's promise of freedom of speech. Yet, if the burning should go ahead, not only is it damaging to America's reputation but also poses huge security risks.

Comments made against the Koran burnings:

Downing Street; "Primarily this is an issue for the US, but clearly the government's view is that we would not condone the burning of any book. We would strongly oppose any attempt to offend any member of any religious or ethnic group. We are committed to religious tolerance."

OIC Secretary General (Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu); "The culture of peaceful co-existence and inter communal and inter-religious tolerance that the international community is trying to achieve is under threat from marginal and extremist fanatics."

William Hague; The burning of the Koran would be offensive not just to Muslims but to all supporters of religious freedom and tolerance worldwide. Eid is a time of celebration, charitable giving and family gathering. To seek to mar it in this calculated way would be selfish and provocative in the extreme."

Tony Blair; "I deplore the act of burning the Koran. It is disrespectful, wrong and will be widely condemned by people of all faiths and none. In no way does this represent the view of any sensible person in the West or any other part of the world. You do not have to be a Muslim to share a sense of deep concern at such a disrespectful way to treat the Holy Book of Islam. Rather than burn the Koran, I would encourage people to read it."

There has not been news yet as to whether Mr Jones plans to continue the Koran burnings; despite worldwide pressure for him to cancel his plans. Meanwhile the rest of us struggle to comprehend, as shown above, why we are having to persuade such a man, not to commit a KKK reminiscent offence in the supposedly tolerant society of today.

The Hague Plague Spreads...

The 'Hague Plague' is catching on across media nationwide...
Is he? Isn't he?
But is it really any of our business as to what the sexual orientation of our foreign secretary is?

Over the years, in politics, and indeed across society, it would seem attitudes regarding sexuality have become much more relaxed, almost to the extent that having gay MPs is practically mandatory within a party.
Being homosexual or even bisexual should not be an issue at all, except perhaps for Hague's wife Ffion. Neither should it matter to the general public as to whether Hague has been disloyal to his wife or not; politicians should be judged on how well they do their jobs, not how 'nice' they are in their private lives.

In an ideal world, parliament would be full of committed, sensible and intelligent people with the right political values who radiate loveliness to those surrounding them. But as always, the ideal world isn't achievable and the human race certainly isn't perfect. And of the many above qualities that make a politician; "loveliness" is certainly the lowest of my priorities.
If Wayne Rooney can cheat on his pregnant wife Coleen with a call girl, yet still be an impressive football player and loyal team member...
Then, William Hague can supposedly cheat on his wife with Christopher Myers, yet still successfully serve his country as foreign secretary...
I am trying to say that yes, we should judge a politician's character but only in those areas that apply to their work. The rest is private business; A line needs to be drawn.

The only reason it possibly should interest the public, is whether, if Mr Hague did have feelings for the young aide, this caused him to appoint him as a special adviser. But the media explosion following reports that Hague and Myers shared a room during the election campaign seems to have engulfed the real question; should Myers have been appointed as a spad?

It emerged that the aide was never included within an official list of spads published in June by Downing Street, therefore suggesting Christopher Myers was never officially appointed and so raising questions as to whether "the list", which was supposed to demonstrate how the coalition was cutting back on political appointments, was completed.
Cameron promised fewer spads would be used in the coalition to cut costs, limiting it to two spads per minister, however Hague's appointment of Mr Myers meant he had a total of three advisers.
There was also controversy as to whether 25 year old Myers had enough experience for the job and so perhaps Hague's 'soft spot' for Myers led to the appointment.

But the real issue of debate was overrun by the media's greed for a good sex story; leading to Hague having to make a very personal statement to the public and a man, who, for all we know, could have been a very successful advisor to the foreign secretary having to resign as a result of media pressure.

I wish William and Ffion well, I hope the media will now leave them alone and Christopher Myers will just become some distant memory...


I'd also like to express my condolences towards David Cameron. Political differences aside; I think we can all agree that we can appreciate how hard it is to lose someone so close.

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...

PSYCHIC PAUL FAVOURS SPAIN

It's the moment you've been waiting for...
As the box is lowered into the tank the tension becomes unbearable...
Just who will Psychic Paul choose?

As the slithering tentacles hover over the two boxes; thousands gripped the edge of their seats as they watched the event broadcasted live across German TV...
After seconds which seemed like hours, Paul quite deliberately picked the mussel contained within the Spanish box, devastating Holland fans across the world.

Come on. Seriously?
I know the news is pretty grim at the moment with a gunman having been on the loose, a 15 year old being sentenced for life and a blast from the past regarding the 'spy swap' between Russia and America but I'm beginning to worry the BBC are taking the octopus thing a bit too seriously...

At this rate, I won't be suprised if the BBC hire Paul to be the 6pm weatherman...
Has anyone even thought, that Octopuses are colourblind? So Paul could easily mistake the Bolivian Flag for the German flag or the French for the Italian e.t.c...
Not that I'm saying he could recognise the flags anyhow!

Okay, so technically, this post isn't politically based as usual but thought I'd just point the issue out. Just five hours until we find out whether the 'tentacled tipster' is correct...

The Cotton Wool Culture...

Children are being made to wear goggles before handling Blu Tack, to prevent them rubbing the common adhesive into their eyes in one school.
In another school, teachers are given a five-page briefing on the dangers of Pritt Stick which must be read before use of the glue within the classroom.
Do you remember making the rockets, castles and boats with the empty egg boxes when you were younger? Well, now many schools have banned these for fear of salmonella poisoning.
There have also been reported bans on footballs, snowball fights and conker games in playgrounds across the country.

Here we have another clear example of hypocrisy on the behalf of the government and authorities...

On one hand, the government encourage families to adopt an active lifestyle with the "Change 4 Life" scheme, yet they are restricting children being able to do this through ludicrous health and safety laws within schools...

However, whilst the government enforces such ridiculous acts; it seems to me that Michael Gove is the real health and safety problem for our children...

After mistakenly promising 25 schools that their new building projects would go ahead, Michael Gove now risks further unpopularity through cancelling the Labour government's £55bn Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme and suspending projects in 715 schools.
Leaving some pupils sat in schools which are quite literally falling down around them...

Suddenly being hit by a snowball seems kind of trivial...

Classic Hypocrisy...

"VAT will NOT be increased to 20%, instead other less damaging, tax cuts will be made."
- Stated by David Cameron on the subject of the then forthcoming emergency budget in his first interview as Prime Minister with Andrew Marr.

He also stated within the same interview how Labour had made some "outrageous" spending decisions.
Well, is it not just as "outrageous" to lie to the public? Or have we simply neglected the 'restore trust in politics' attitude so frequently displayed during his election campaign?

'Dave' also claimed to be "burying old Conservatism" within the interview but how does the decision to rise VAT from 17.5% to 20% reflect this?
This will devastate the poor and leave families over £500 a year worse off.
Forget the Robin Hood Tax - this budget does the complete opposite.

It seems like the same old Tories to me...

Whilst the smug and smarmy Sheriff sits in his castle, poor Vince Cable struggles to explain the non-exsistent good of the budget to the bewildered peasants in the realms of Question Time...

If I'm struggling to continue encouraging the coalition, it makes me wonder how much longer the Lib Dem MPs will pledge their support to corruption...

Hypocrisy; the act of persistently pretending to hold beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually hold (see also, David Cameron P97)
- Perhaps I should submit this as the new definition for hypocrisy in the next edition of the Oxford English Dictionary?

The Academy Bill...? Well, it's not going to make anything any worse....

I was hot and tired after 2hours of being couped up in an exam room.
As I entered my house there were two things on my mind; Food and Sleep.

A letter from my school telling me they were seeking academy status was certainly not on my mind. And wasn't welcome.

Fair enough, perhaps this will benefit my own school but what about those less fortunate?

The "Every Child Matters" initiative will become;

"A child only matters if they happen to go to a school which is performing well, too bad if they go to a school in a deprived area with poor exam results and falling numbers"

Surely at a time when we are recovering from a global economic crisis we should be supporting those worse off, instead of increasing the gap between the good and the bad; the rich and the poor?

That's exactly what fast-tracking 'Outstanding' Schools to Academy Status is doing - It's the same old Tories.

It seems to me, that the only argument in favour of this policy is that it won't make anything any worse. And make the 'elite' schools the 'uber elite'.

To me; this is not a valid reason to spend lots of parliamentary time and considerable amounts of money especially at a time when the OBR have just announced that economic growth is not going to be as rapid as expected and with millions still unemployed.

Cheered up though after I received an email from the Lib Dems urging members to support a petition against the Academies Bill and reassurance that it was not a policy included within the coalition agreement.

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.

Simply just opening this web page could have you arrested, detained by security personnel and imprisoned for years without trial.

I continue the theme of political inequality from my last post, only this case is somewhat more extreme, the country I talk about is of course; Burma.

The current events in neighbouring Thailand reminded me of the incomprehendable chaos, controversy and inequality that has shadowed Burma for the past 48 years. A chaos which has wrongly been ignored by British government and media. It seems it has been given up as a 'lost cause'.

Over 250,000 Muslims fled to Bangladesh as a result of a major army offensive in 1989. A similar amount followed as a result of further offensives in 1997.
No, this isn't the BNP. This is the Junta; Burma's brutal military government.


The unjust targeting of Muslim communities isn't the only horrific crime the Junta have to boast about...


The Junta have imposed forced labor on 800,000 people, massacred thousands of peaceful pro-democracy demonstrators, driven more than 1million people into exile and have carried out murder, rape and torture whilst depriving the Burmese of many basic human rights which we take for granted.

In Burma; torture has become an institution.

So, who are the Junta?

The Junta is the name given to the military government in Burma who overthrew the last democratically elected government in 1962. Since seizing power, the Junta have corrupted Burma Stalin-style; ruling through terror and injustice.

Political gatherings are banned.
The opposing political party; the NLD (National League for Democracy) won the last election with an 80% majority; but the Junta refused to move from power.

Up to 20years imprisonment can be given for simply opposing the Junta's policies; whether this be through peaceful demonstration, simply 'having a moan' or violent protest.
Censorship is heavy - even art exhibitions have to be approved of by the military authority.
And all computers, fax machines and modems (anything that could be used to communicate with the outside world) have to be licensed so only those who are deemed 'trustworthy' by the government can possess them; otherwise it's 15 years in jail.

Perhaps it isn't entirely true to say Western countries have given Burma up as 'a lost cause'... Gordon Brown promised to maintain the pressure on the Junta in 2007 whilst the UN and other international organisations such as Amnesty International have made moves towards taking action.

But, the current economic crisis in Europe and America has brought problems closer to home and many people remain blissfully unaware of the situation in Burma.

I am not saying we launch a full-scale intervention into Burma, although it is needed.
But I am asking for people to strip back their ignorance:

Next time you complain about the government's spending cuts, the NHS waiting lists, the MPs expenses, the deficit, immigration e.t.c, e.t.c... and you realise that our government and society is far from perfect - just think to yourself it could be a whole lot worse - because in Burma; that single complaint could completely change your life; and it wouldn't be for the better.





More information about the situation in Burma and how you can support the campaign to stand up to the Junta can be found through this link:
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=11780

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?

David Clegg and Nick Cameron: The Happy Couple?

Yesterday marked an important landmark in British political history; the first coalition government since 1945. Hopefully the beginning of a new political scene...

After the dissapointing loss of five seats in parliament - my spirits were rather low on Friday morning. It was as if 'Cleggmania' had never ceased to exsist.

Although, it soon emerged Nick Clegg would be the 'Kingmaker' of Britain's future government, therefore despite having lost the election, the Lib Dems were in perhaps the most powerful position. Then followed the chaos/excitement (however you look at it) of the following six days...

The Result: A Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition.

With David Cameron as Prime Minister and Nick Clegg as Deputy.
Vince Cable, Chris Huhne, David Laws, Danny Alexander alongside Nick; will occupy seats in Cameron's Cabinet. An exciting occasion as the Cabinet has been 'forbidden territory' for the Lib Dems for all too long.

The Con-Lib marriage and David Cameron becoming Prime Minister...

I cannot say I like the Conservatives. I cannot say I like Cameron being Prime Minister.
But, as the election campaign has progressed I will admit that I have grown to tolerate Cameron, perhaps even admire him at times - especially after having watched his impressive performances in Parliament during the PMQs (to Gordon Brown) on several occasions.
I would however; never vote Tory. They have far too many outrageous policies which engulf the odd few which seem just-about sensible.

However, I do believe that the actions and behaviour of both parties over the past week has been both noble and admirable.

The Conservatives; centre right. The Liberals; centre left.
Surely this should not work?

But; they have made it work.
For once, political parties have put the best interest of our country over party politics.
And the result; the stable government we so urgently need to conquer our financial problems.
Clegg, Cameron and their corresponding teams I believe, have been a credit to the country.
Yes there were sacrifices. Yes there will be moments of conflict.
But there will be stability. And Britain will be pulled out from this recession.

I worry many Lib Dem supporters will loose confidence in their party as a result of the Lib-Con coalition. I hope the few who feel let down and dissapointed will realise it was for the greater good. In a nutshell here are the reasons why I believe it was a good agreement, despite the fact it resulted in a Tory government.

'The Big Three'

1. Stability:
A Lib-Lab Coalition would not have provided this. Although the two parties are more similar as they are both left wing parties, their coalition would not have formed a majority in parliament.
Forcing Labour to persuade smaller parties e.g. The SNP to join what would become a complex and unstable parliament. This would take time we do not have to spare in our current economic situation. That time would potentially be wasted; as it is likely the finished coalition would be incredibly unstable and indeceisive.

2. Fairness:
I hate to say this. But although the Tories did not win the election, they did have the biggest share of votes, therefore would it really be fair for all the losers to 'gang up' on them?
Not only would this be unfair on the Tory party who have put so much effort (and alot of money!) into campaigning but it would be unfair on those who voted for them. The Lib Dems claim to stand for fairness and therefore I think a Lib-Con coalition was the right deceision taken by Nick Clegg.

3. Neutrality:
I believe that the coalition could be said to give a fair representation of what the country wanted.
The Conservatives naturally represent those who voted Conservative, whilst the Lib Dems not only represent those who voted for them but perhaps it could be said they also help voice some of the 'left wing ideas' which are similar to those of Labour's.
An Acid and Alkali reaction; neutralisation; as both left and right wing policies will form this government instead of predominantly just one.

I really hope the Lib-Con 'marriage' works out and that the Lib Dems haven't lost support through perhaps an unpopular but wise decision.

Perhaps Nick Clegg foresaw the events of this week at the start of the election, where he repeated how he wanted to see "parties work together" in that very first live TV debate.
It's a good job he wanted it - because he got just that.