Embracing the Cold: Vince Cable goes Nuclear.

So he's not too old to give up the dancing, but clearly old enough to go senile...

"I have a nuclear option; it's like fighting a war. They know I have nuclear weapons, but I don't have any conventional weapons. If they push me too far then I can walk out and bring the government down and they know that. So it is a question of how you use that intelligently without getting involved in a war that destroys all of us. That is quite a difficult position to be in and I am picking my fights. Some of which you may have seen."

Oh that tragic day, where within just a few minutes, Vince, metaphorically speaking managed to turn the gun on himself.
In the ramble he revealed state secrets, launched war on the Tories, Murdoch and a dozen other senior political figures - all of this he managed to lace together with aggresive, nuclear terminology.
This has to be the perfect media candy.
"I don't expect you to quote this outside" he said.
Oh Vince, if only you knew... If only you knew...

"I have declared war on Mr Murdoch and I think we are going to win".

Amongst the revelations, the most devestating seems to be the attack on Rupert Murdoch.
On this one, if I'm frank, I'm with Vince;
We're all at war with Murdoch a little bit.

But when you are the official who has been trusted with the quasi-judicial role on the situation; as Vince found out, it's maybe best not to voice such negative views against the matter so openly.

To clear things up, what is the Murdoch controversy?
In June 2010, News Corporation announced their intention to fully takeover BSkyB and it was believed the deal, devoid of difficultly, would go ahead, with only the price agreement posing a problem.
In many ways, BSkyB was already unofficially tagged as being part of the Murdoch empire, despite News Corporation only physically owning 39% of the shares. Furthermore, Murdoch himself had set up Sky in 1990, when he merged it with British Satellite Broadcasting.
Therefore, in June, the takeover didn't seem too radical.
But then maybe it was just kept quiet...

However, by September a campaign had begun to arise, in the press and parliament. A campaign which continues to this day.
This latest takeover would result in an even tighter, suffocating grip on the media, bringing with it considerable political influence. This would place disturbing power within the hands of the one individual; Rupert Murdoch. An idea naturally repelled by all those in favour of democracy. Additionally, there are concerns on the effect of plurality; choice for consumers within the market.

Ofcom must decide by 31st December whether to refer the bid to the Competition Commission. But with Vince Cable clearly not being the neutral judge needed, the final decision on whether the blocking goes ahead or not, will now rest with Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt, as will all future decisions of this nature.

One humiliated, demoted Vince Cable... Two undercover telegraph reporters... And a ramble of loaded languge...The perfect gripping news story to plague the tabloids for a couple of weeks...

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.

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?

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?