Are the Liberal Democrats missing their chance?

With the news that the Liberal Democrats are initiating a review chaired by Menzies Campbell into Trident, it is important to ask whether the Lib Dems are missing a chance to show further their true commitment to change so that the world becomes a safer and more harmonious place. Instead of starting a review that will look into the alternatives to Trident, why not state a moral objection to Trident – which the party has advocated in the past.

This is our chance to help show to the public that our views on important issues such as nuclear weapons are fundamentally different to the other parties, as they are routed in moral justifications instead of pure economics. Of course economic implications are important, but to wholly ignore moral principles does little to help tackle the common assumption that politics and principles conflict significantly.

With a recent poll showing how 54% of those polled want nuclear disarmament, never mind Trident or any cheaper version being scrapped, it is time we stand up for what is right. We should lead the way in nuclear disarmament, as if we don’t start now we never will…

A damming day for British democracy…

With the news that Gary McKinnon has lost his extradition appeal, this just further confirms that the UK has now become the fifty-first USA state. How is it right for someone who is a UK national to be trialed and imprisoned in a different country? If this is not a breach of our human rights, i do not know what else is.

As McKinnon’s lawyer pointed out, the law was introduced in response to terrorism, not to arrest someone who was simply trying to find out about UFOs. It is extreme, especially given his medical condition. When things like this happen, it just further shows how out of touch our democracy is, and how everyday there seems to be a gradual erosion of our civil liberties.

Hopefully, Mckinnon will go to the Supreme Court, and hopefully we will see justice done for basic human rights and democracy.

A furious Feminist rant…

It strikes me as surprising that there is still such discontent towards women in politics, when our country strives itself on being as inclusive as possible. Even the attitude of some Liberal Democrat members is strikingly sexist and derogatory towards women, and conflicts so strongly with our central aims of fairness and equality for all groups in society.

The recent Guardian article points to how the Equality and Human Rights Commission is a good example of how politics needs to separate the needs and issues regarding disadvantaged groups in society more. Ethnicity, sexism and homophobia are separate and equally important issues, and need to have bodies wholly devoted to challenging the still endemic discriminatory attitudes towards them in society. Furthermore, there may be an ethnic minority who is sexist and homophobic, whilst championing equality and fairness against the discrimination that the ethnic group they come from face, for example. There needs to be more attention spent towards helping these individual groups and helping tackle the discrimination that one group may have towards another disadvantaged group, as otherwise, it is hypocritical to campaign for only more human rights for their own group, whilst ignoring the needs of other disadvantaged groups.

This links to a systemic failing within the Liberal Democrat party, as whilst we do have a more equality based aim than Labour and the Tories, at a local level I sometimes start to wonder why I am even bothering with politics. This represents politics at a national level, as the last I heard, women make up 17% of the House of Commons. This is shocking, when women make up more than half of the population, how the hell are we supposed to represent our needs when we are often locally denied the chance to get onto the ladder of politics. The leadership really need to address the obvious signs of discrimination that our party has within it, as it is not something that deserves to be in politics, never mind the Liberal Democrats. However, it hurts more when you hear and experience if from fellow Liberal Democrats, as I joined the party as I felt it offered something different, something that would help represent the disadvantaged groups such as women in society, not join in with the sexist attitudes towards women in society.

These sexist attitudes and the control men have in society over women feed into the poisonous industries such as porn that all contribute to the disadvantaged standing women often face. Men control women for their own sexual gain in the corrosive porn industry, this does little to help women’s self confidence and belief in obtaining highly important jobs such as political office. This is worrying as it means women are shut out of many of the key decisions around education, welfare, health, work (links to recent pay gap increase).How are women supposed to stand up for themselves against these sexist views if they aren’t provided the opportunity to get in a position to do that?

The Liberal Democrats need to take special attention to this, as this is not acceptable in a party that has on its membership card:

“…fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.”

Huhne leads the way on criticising Labour’s "inhumane" asylum system…

With the news that Labour actually tax more on the poor than the rich, there is no surprise that they are intending to attack asylum seekers with cuts aimed at sorting out their big budget deficit. Not only does this show that Labour are liars as they are clearly cutting public services, it also shows the immorality that now surrounds the Labour party.

The cuts to the asylum seekers living allowance will put them in absolute poverty, or near it. They will definitely become below the level of subsistence, and just shows the lack of concern Labour have for the poorest and more disadvantaged people in society. The proposals will see some asylum seekers to have to live on as little as £5 a day.

Interestingly, the only comments on the cuts have come from Chris Huhne, who rightly comments on the immoral and disgraceful handling of immigrants by the government:

“Many asylum-seekers are already left destitute by the Government’s incompetence and these penny-pinching cuts will make life harder still.”

Chris Huhne also comments on how the government should allow the asylum seekers more leeway by providing them the ability to go into work, whilst they wait for a substantial period of time to hear about their claims:

“Britain’s proud record of providing sanctuary to the oppressed is undermined by forcing people to get by on £35 a week. The easiest way to cut the asylum budget would be to let asylum-seekers work to support them. It is ridiculous that the Government will not even consider this for people who have waited months for a decision. Ministers have managed to create a system that is both inefficient and inhumane.”

I do agree with Huhne, how can we pride ourselves on a country of equality when proposals such as this promote dire situations for some of the most disadvantaged in society?

As Huhne rightly says, the system needs to be looked at. This is just another policy by Labour that shows clearly how the social divisions in society have become more prominent whilst they have been in office. To help cut the debt that they have created in society, why don’t they start looking at some of their wasteful projects, such as the ID scheme, and closing many of the loopholes that exist for the wealthy? Furthermore, it seems highly improper for bankers to continue to get their huge wages and bonuses when they are the reason we are in this mess, and the reason that people who are disadvantages such as the asylum seekers, have to pay more to try and rebalance the government’s books.

More pounds and prestige value needed to tackle gender pay gap…

In a BBC article today, there are concerns about the gender pay gap’s increase from 21.9% to 22.6% (Fawcett Society have it at 17%), but is important to recognise that these concerns have been around for at least 40 years. Whilst it is important to address the pay gap, acknowledge the report and that the government do have some useful ideas of how to tackle the gap, there has to be a recognition of the historical context of the occupations women are more likely to do, which the Fawcett Society highlight.

Many women choose to do the so called ‘five c’s’ (caring, cashiering, clerical, cleaning and catering) and are not pushed by external pressure. As the Fawcett Society advocates, the issue is not women going into stereotyped jobs per se, but instead, it is the actual lack of value and money attached to the jobs women are more likely to do. Therefore, the main way in which the gender gap can be tackled is for the wages of jobs that women are more likely to do to see an increase, as they are crucial jobs for our economy. For example, many women provide influential care work for our society, there is no reason for women to be pushed out of these types of jobs, and they should just be rewarded more in terms of wages.

As well as paying women more for the jobs they do, there also needs to be a consideration around a more comprehensive childcare scheme, and more equality in terms of paternity leave. This is one of the many reasons for why I am a Liberal Democrat, as these are fundamental to our overall policy direction, as shown by this link.

Whilst I believe the report should have had a different focus in terms of responding to the pay gap, it is also important to consider how stereotyping may lead to women believing less in their self in respect to their preferred career. I often find that the dominant male attitude that surrounds politics puts me off ever trying to be in politics. Therefore, discrimination and stereotyping in relation to what are seen as women and men ‘typical’ jobs needs to be addressed. However, with this, we have to recognise that women need to be paid more for the jobs that they are more likely to do, and that they also should have the same money as men for doing the same jobs, as more often than not the women who do make it into them top jobs actually get even less than women who are in poorer sectors in comparisons to men.

The localised dream, riddled with contradiction…

There now seems to be a dominant discourse in British Politics that wants to rebalance power so it is more localised than centralised. However, this discourse has a central theme of contradiction, as there is a disjuncture between rhetoric and policies regarding localisation. It is true to say that the Tories do fair the worst in regards to this contradiction, however, all three parties have examples of the contradiction within their discourse.

The Tories have a low level of democratic decision making in terms of their policy ideas, with their polices largely determined by think tanks and their leadership. Indeed, there have been comments and concerns by Tories themselves around the close relationship that Osborne and Cameron share, which excludes important people from key decisions. This is one of the many examples that illustrates that despite the Tory rhetoric of localisation there is a dominant practice of centralisation. You only have to look at a recent speech by Cameron regarding localisation, democracy and power, where Cameron states we need a “massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power”, to see an example of the rhetorical stance the Tories have on localisation.

Whilst the discourse of localisation has become more prominent in contemporary politics it has been around for a long time, as have the relating contradictions. For example, Thatcher wanted people to gain more power and control over their life’s, as shown by her council house policy – however, again, once looked at closer, her line of approach is riddled with contradictions. For example, look at the introduction of the National Curriculum, or how schools were allowed to drop out of local governmental control. There is also the example the Greater London Council, where Thatcher wanted to centralise the decisions around what she seemed to be moral issues even further after the body (rightly) promoted the minority groups’ needs in society.

Labour on the other hand has a long history of wanting strong state control and centralisation. However, now the mantra for all parties is that localisation is needed to achieve democracy, which I do agree with. However, Labour are again a beaming example of the contradiction inherent within their new approach, maybe the conflict of their long history of centralisation makes this worse, but you only have to look at law and order polices to see the problems with their localisation approach. The polices that they actually use to demonstrate their localisation dream are little more than tokenism.

For example, they brought in a scheme that allowed the local people to decide if they wanted those doing community service to wear orange jackets. This only serves as a stigmatisation policy, and does little to help direct the criminals away from a life full of crime. There is also the ability of local people to choose the punishments they want for the criminals, again, this is just little more than a gimmick, and shows how whilst they promise localisation the way in which they give the power is contradicting, as it does little to actually help improve democracy. The Labour government is riddled by centralisation, as shown by the plans and implementation of big brother databases, Brown’s ‘ladette culture’, Blair’s ‘sofa government’ and disregard of Iraq war protests.

Whilst the Liberal Democrats have been ahead in many of the issues regarding localisation, the events around the ‘aspirations’ controversy last week shows that we are not above the inherent contradictions within the localisation discourse. Even though we do have arguably the most democratic structure for deciding policy, the leadership was shown to override the FPC and the general view of the members over key polices such as tuition fees and call them little more than ‘aspirations’. This shows how the centralised ways of our leadership have taken key decisions into their own hands, even though they know this goes against the wishes of the people who have elected them.

Whilst the discourse of localisation is needed and quite rightly promoted, there needs to be considerations around the inherent contradictions that all three parties face when using it. The Tories arguably are the worst in regard to the contradictions as they have a long history of ideologically committing to a position regarding limited state control but are shown to be increasingly centralised in their decision making process. Labour’s change from wanting less state intervention contradicts with their long-standing strands of centralisation, and so when localisation is carried out it is often tokenism. Whereas the Liberal Democrats are the most localised in their approach, and have the most democracy within decision-makings, however, recent events show how we are not immune to the contradictions within the discourse of localisation.

Elderly people let down by all parties this week…

With news today that the UK have the fourth highest level of poverty for the over 65′s, above countries such as Romania, it really does show how unequal society has become under successive Labour and Tory governments.

The government’s response:

“The Department for Work and Pensions said even the poorest pensioners in the UK were better off than those living in other countries.”

This is true. However, relatively speaking (as the report used the relative poverty definition), they are still worse off; as if you compare it to the average living standards in the UK the over 65′s are in considerable disadvantage.

It is comparable to the disastrous level of child poverty after the Thatcher era, it was not as bad as some countries, but despicable given we are in the G8.

Age Concern rightly point to the problems around the stigmatisation of means tested benefits for elderly people who may find them hard to fill in or may not even be aware of their existence. This is what the charity attributes partly to the high level of poverty amongst the elderly. Things like the low level of interest rates and fuel poverty will not help either.

Rightly, Vince Cable outlined yesterday ways in which older people can be brought back into helping the economy, which will help us out of the recession, but also will help lower the level of poverty for over 65′s that the report highlights. These include, removing the discriminating compulsory retirement age, which will help tackle the problems that are being caused by the ageing population.

This is a wakeup call for the government, but will most likely be just ‘looked at’. There are real areas of concern around elderly people and poverty, and to see Nick Clegg calling key polices of the Lib Dem’s that could be used to tackle over 65 year olds poverty as ‘aspirations’ is concerning.

Good news for the Lib Dems…

We are the only party to have seen an increase in the polls, with us appearing to steal 2% from the Tories.

Here is the link.

Long may it continue…

Motorists’ trust eroded further by Tory proposals…

So, regarding the recent comments on how the government’s road taxation have lead to motorists not trusting why they are being taxed as the money is said to be used for everything from green taxes to helping congestion, Theresa Villiers for the Conservatives said:

“This report is further evidence of the mess Labour have made of motoring taxes.

Their attempts at disguising retrospective car tax hikes as green taxes has backfired. Dressing up revenue raisers designed to plug the enormous black hole in Gordon Brown’s public finances as green taxes fools no one and leaves road users aggrieved.”

The Telegraph has announced that the Tories are planning on introducing road tolls for newly built roads to help cut public spending.

So, what is the difference?

This totally contradicts what Villers said. It further adds to the discontent that motorists will have with the money that they have to pay for driving on the roads in the UK, and is being used to cut the “enormous black hole in Gordon Brown’s public finances”.

It is interesting to consider again how Tory rhetoric and actual polices have a clear disjuncture, they are definitely the party of headlines and soundbites as much as Labour have been.

Because talking down the economy does not help…

Ok, we are coming out of a precedented global recession, however, this week there have been signs that things are starting to improve. However, in a desperate way to help the economy to continue to recover, The Independent run with a headline that suggests that there is a ‘new recession’, just because their poll shows how we have seen business leaders support for the idea of ‘Green Shoots’ drop from 37% to 33%.

A little exaggerated if I do say so myself…

Ok, I am not an expert on the economy, there may well be a ‘W’ shaped recession instead of the government’s predicted ‘V’ shape, but to say that there is a ‘new recession’ mainly on the basis of this poll is evidence of the media exaggerations around the economy.

If we look at the evidence for the economy starting to show sings of recovery, we only need to look at the stories this week showing how retail sales have rose far beyond expert expectation, for example.

However, whilst at the time I did not agree with the VAT cut, the fact that Darling is going to go contrary to expert opinion and restore VAT to its normal price on the 1st of January, may actually ironically fund the talks around a ‘new recession’. It is possibly the worst day of the year to bring it back in, and only the Labour government would not continue with a scheme they introduced when people actually want them to. Whether we will see a u-turn in this area of governmental policy as cabinet divisions strengthen over it, remains to be seen.

I am not being naive and saying that there is no chance that we are not out of the worst of the recession, but to start headlines like ‘new recession’ in leading newspapers will prove unhelpful for confidence in the economy. We will have to watch the developments of the economy, however, unfortunately whilst I do not agree with leading headlines such as ‘new recession’, there could well be a ‘W’ shaped recovery, if Darling cannot secure better loans to small businesses today, if the VAT cut is reversed on the 1st of January, for example. But we need to focus more on the positive signs that are occurring and work from there.