"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.

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.

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?