My Liberal Democrat Political Ramblings...

NEW BLOG SITE!

2009-09-16T21:56:00.001+01:00

I have changed my blog site from blogger to wordpress, so here is the new site:)

http://myliberaldemocratpoliticalramblings.wordpress.com/

It offers more options so yeah, I decided a change was needed.

Thanks

My response to the Real Women amendments (as I am sadly not going to the Conference)

2009-09-15T15:18:00.001+01:00

I have heard of various amendments that are being tabled against the Real Women campaign, and it was today that I received an email from the Gender Balance campaign within the Liberal Democrats, expressing concerns around these proposed amendments. They are amendments Lembit Opik would be probably be proud to write about in his Daily Sport column. In seriousness, the amendments want to remove the proposals to tackle the unreal body image expectations in the media, and the 'name blanking' proposals intended to tackle discrimination at work.

Removing the promise to tackle the unrealistic expectations that are often projected in the media around women's body image, would abolish a central feature of the Real Women campaign. The Real Women campaign does exactly what it says on the tin. It is about promoting Real Women. Thus, Real Women do not constitute blown up airbrushed fake women plastered all over any medium you can find. Real Women, are women who wear and tear as everyone does, well everyone who does not seek out plastic surgery to hide the evidence. Amending this removes a central aim of the policy, which is to alleviate the pressures for women in society. Men do not have to face half as much pressure and exploitation in relation to their bodies. As I have said time and time before, men do not have to walk into newsagents to be greeted with fake half naked and naked men blown up on several magazines and newspapers. The Liberal Democrat males do not have one of their own MPs writing in a sex obsessed degrading male newspaper. Amending this proposal is removing the core feature to the campaign. It removes what I think is one if not the main reason/s for why these proposals have caught on with many women. What it does, is hit a strong chord with women who feel exposed and pressured into being something they are not, even if that something they are not, is fake.

In regard to name blanking, this is again a central feature of the campaign. It helps tackle the gender and ethnic discrimination that occurs in the workplace. It comes with the news that Labour are dropping their pledge to increase maternity leave from 9 months to a year due to cost. However, maybe, maternity leave extension being dropped is a good thing. It helps us focus more on the unequal divide between maternity and paternity leave, which the Real Women campaign seeks to challenge. I would argue that instead of increasing maternity leave from 9 months to a year, there instead needs to be a change and extension of paternity leave to equal out the books. How is it fair that we leave the paternity leave at the pathetic way it is, but then talk about extending the maternity leave? Name blanking relates to maternity and paternity discussions, as from the name you can tell if the person is a woman or a man. Obviously, if it is a woman, thoughts around childcare comes into play for the employer. Thus, if covered, then there would be a true assessment on skills and talents not childrearing. Therefore, tackling the maternity/paternity leave divide would arguably make the name blanking policy easier to carry out.

Both these proposed amendments need to be dropped, as they allow for a partial destruction of the key message of the campaign. I only wish I was going to the conference to help argue against the amendments, but instead, I will argue from my computer:) I can't wait until we move the conference away from the sea side for once, and actually target our core voters in the City's we consistently go on about controlling. Anyway, that is another blog post in its own right.

Anyway, there is a lot more I could say on these issues, and I have commented on them a great deal in previous blog posts too. These amendments are damaging for our party and the effectiveness of the campaign, and I hope they are defeated.

ISA proposals a sign that Britain isn't that Illiberal after all?

2009-09-14T18:51:00.002+01:00

The Independent Safeguarding Authority's (ISA) proposals have come under heavy criticism today. However, I have to agree with the head of the scheme, Sir Roger Singleton, who rightly claims that with balance and rationality, the proposals will allow for a safer society for our children.

On a side note, I think it is also interesting to reflect on Martin Kettle's article and argument that Britain is illiberal and that is one of the three reasons that the Liberal Democrats will find it hard to ever gain power. To counter this, I think it is important to consider how the core route of the criticisms of the ISA scheme is coming from a civil right position. The arguments are focused on the rejections that people have for a Big Brother state. I think an interesting way to look at this, is to take the line I have in regard for Feminism. If you consider the basic Feminist arguments, which is for greater equality for women, in terms of pay, rights and so forth, then near everyone would be seen as a Feminist. The same goes for being a supporter of civil rights. People do not want to be spied on; they want to feel as though their voice matters. I think that the civil liberty line is one that our party should happily and confidently continue, as I think there is clear support for civil rights amongst many in Britain. The message just needs to be clearer. Less of the political jargon, and more of a simplistic message. Many people who are not involved in politics have civil liberty attitudes. I mean, look at how well the Pirate Party are doing. Taking the line that we are some kind of dark illiberal Britain, is like sharing Thomas Hobbes' pessimism of human nature.

However, in regard to this 'vetting system', I think the argument for civil liberties is one that needs to be made carefully. There has to be a clear attempt not to take it out of context. There is a difference between freedom and irresponsibility. If these proposals are carried out with safeguards in place, and responsibly and logically within proportional guidelines, as Singleton said...:

"It is not about interfering with the sensible arrangements which parents make with each other to take their children to schools and clubs.

It is not about subjecting a quarter of the population to intensive scrutiny of their personal lives and it is not about creating mistrust between adults and children or discouraging volunteering.

It is about ensuring that those people who have already been dismissed by their employers for inappropriate behaviour with children do not simply up sticks and move elsewhere in the country to continue their abuse.

And it is about bringing an end to the need for repeated CRB checks which so many people have found irritating. ISA registration is a one-off process for a single fee."

...then I see absolutely nothing wrong with the proposals. Ed Balls is right to just make sure that there are no aspects of the proposals that abuse civil liberties, but I think that these proposals will help in the long term. They will not deter volunteers, as they do not have to pay for the checks. The only way it will deter them and others is if they have something to hide. I think there needs to be a sense of proportion with the responses to these proposals.

Whilst it helps show the concerns many people have for basic civil liberties, and highlights how we are not a total illiberal state, I think some concern has to be taken when using the civil liberty line so that it does not get misrepresented and damage the fight to promote the basic rights that everyone should have in society.

Caution is needed with the switch from universal to means tested benifits...

2009-09-13T15:48:00.001+01:00

So are means tested benefits the way forward for Labour? In their attempt to enscapusulate their core voters, they are talking about changing some of their universal benefits to means tested benefits, such as child benefit. However, I think this needs to be done with utter caution. Yes, some of the universal benefits are not needed for those who are more wealthy in society, especially at a time of extreme public debt. Nevertheless, there are various problems that come with means tested benefits that have to be taken into account, so the situation does get better, not worse.

Firstly, means tested benefits can put people off from applying for them because of the stigmatisation. Those who are too proud to admit they need benefits may be put off, whilst those in poverty may be fed up of the labels already applied to them by society. Furthermore, people may be put off from applying because of the great deal of bureaucracy that they involve, so this is another issue that needs to be tackled. In reducing the red tape, there will be another saving that can be made too. So whilst targeting is good, they have to make sure that this targeting actually works.

Secondly, means tested benefits have to be careful to take into account all factors, before closing people who need the benefits but just fall outside of the benefit requirements. EMA is a clear example. Whilst families may be above the threshold that allows their children to qualify for educational help, it does not mean that they give their children any money to help with their studies. This is the same that can be said for University financial help. Also, what about the number of children they have? That will limit families ability to provide financial help for their children.

Thirdly, there is also the issue of the efficiency and quality of services. There are studies that show that if the benefit is only targeted at the poorer members of society, the service is more likely to be a 'poor service'.

Therefore, what this shows is that whilst the intention may be to be distributional, it is debatable whether it will help tackle the middle/working class divide whilst shoring up the public finances. Whilst I do agree some of the universal benefits need looking at and changing, we have to bare these and other factors into consideration, and make sure that the benefit system is fair.

Cameron wants to live like common people

2009-09-12T20:22:00.001+01:00

I absolutely love this video. It is a spin off of David Cameron referring to his upper class past, and his desperate attempt to appear as though he connects with the ordinary person on the street.

The video also relates to the stories today around Cameron again saying that the election is not in the bag for the Conservatives. People have pointed to how this strongly relates to Cameron's concerns that the public don't really trust him as a person, because of his background and opportunisitc attitudes. Well how can you blame them, after all, they are right!

Anyway, enjoy the video.

Oh dear, Nick Clegg copies the Tory's rhetoric on welfare...

2009-09-10T20:40:00.000+01:00

So it must be true. Nick Clegg appears to be a 'Cameron lite'. The Liberal Democrat members will have all received an email from Clegg today regarding our new unemployement proposals. My concerns are not about the proposals themselves (whilst I do have some resevervations), they are more about his choice of words. I have included the letter again below, highlighting the phrase that made me think, are you serious?

Dear Jane,

We cannot afford to let millions of young people get trapped on the dole. That's why today I've launched a new plan to tackle youth unemployment.

Did you know that nearly a fifth of 18 to 24-year-olds are currently unemployed? Without action now, more than 1.2 million young people could be unemployed by the end of 2011.

The Conservatives failed a whole generation in the wake of the last recession. A whole generation became trapped in a culture of dependency. Labour look set to repeat the same mistakes now. We can't let that happen.

Today I'm launching new policy that would take almost 900,000 unemployed young people off the streets.

Under our plans more than 800,000 young people will be given a leg-up into industry via paid internships. An extra 60,000 places will be funding in universities and colleges, opening up further and higher education.

We will slash the time Labour forces young people to wait for support, fully fund apprenticeships to put British industry back on track and give more youngsters places on essential back-to-work schemes.

Our proposals would cost £1.1 billion and would be paid for by scrapping the VAT cut immediately.

For more details see my website: NickClegg.com/LostGeneration

Only the Liberal Democrats will nurture the talent of young people and ensure no one is left behind.

Best regards,

As you can see from the highlighting, the phrase that really caught my attention was 'culture of dependency'. For how long has it been the party line to support this flawed and illogical right wing concept? That is a Tory concept, which I have consistently argued against in previous blog posts. What it does is make out it is only the individuals fault for their problems. It takes the attention away from the structural reasons people rely on benefits, stigmatising them for their supposed depraved values. I never thought I would hear this type of rubbish from a Lib Dem, especially our own Leader!

It is even more depressing to read this when we look at our policy framework, that has a good balance between taking into account the structure and the individual causes of social problems, such as poverty. What this does, is distort reality. I only hope that this does not become an usual sound bite and part of the party's rhetoric, as an attempt to encapsulate some of the Tory voters.

I wholly disagree with the phrase 'culture of dependency'. It is unfair, stigmatising, shown to be empirically incorrect and actually makes the social problems worse as it leads people to miss the route causes. I hope Clegg realises that this was a mistake, and that our party should not be drawn into using flawed concepts the Tory's pride themselves on.

Playgirl (and beyond): A Feminist respones to male orientated porn...

2009-09-09T15:25:00.003+01:00

I have to firstly apologise about past posts if I did not make clear my stance on porn magazines. When I said there are no male ones, I knew some existed (did not know their names), but I meant that there are not any mainstream male porn magazines you could find in places such as your local newsagents. However, Paul Walter's comments regarding my Sexualisation of our world blog, lead to me discovering a quite interesting male porn magazine, Playgirl, which started in 1973, and was quite a popular magazine.

Before people start saying, see there are porn magazines for women in the mainstream, Playgirl stopped publishing this January/February. Furthermore, it has a rather interesting context regarding its emergence. Playgirl is a porn magazine that was set up by Feminists, as a counter response to the images and treatment of women in society, such as in Playboy (hence, Playgirl), and the over sexualised female images in porn magazines. Explaining why the Playgirl magazine existed, the then Editor in chief, Michele Zipp said:

"It's 'Entertainment for Women' because there's no other magazine out there that caters to women in the way we do, but we love our gay readers, as well."

Organised Feminist protest in the form of producing our own male porn magazine is something I have argued for in previous blogs, and little did I know that it had actually been done. Furthermore, it is also interesting to note that this was a United States published magazine.

Paul provided me with a Wikipedia link to a list of pornographic magazines for men and women. It is quite telling that there is a categorisation scheme only for the porn magazines marketed for men, as there are so many! The list shows that there are only NINE (To clarify after comments below, this does include homosexual and lesbian porn magazines*) porn magazines for women around the world in total, and only ONE porn magazine in the UK (called Filament), which has only just been launched. However, it is interesting to note that it appears to have a Feminist background too, with a column called 'Ask a Feminist', whilst also stating clearly that it does not discuss traditional women topics such as diets and cosmetics. Maybe, this will be the UK's response to the success of Playgirl. It is a shame that Playgirl had to finish really, and it sadly shows it did not fit the taste of our male dominated culture. To see the difference in numbers between the male and female porn magazines, just simply click on the link above and have a look for yourself, it says it all!

*It is important to note that there are only 2 lesbian porn magazines listed on the link, showing how lesbians themselves have less access to lesbian porn than heterosexual males, again showing strong power divides. Gay men have a wide range of access to homosexual porn too, again highlighting the male dominance in the industry. There has been the suggestion women will just buy this male orientated porn instead, but this does not address the issue that it is not catered towards women's interests. Homosexuality to me, does not subtract from the key issue of exploitation that this industry fosters, mainly towards women. Yes, men are exploited too, but not to the same extent and level women are.

I just thought this was quite interesting to consider. Playgirl was a move I have to support, and it appears with Filament, there may be another attempt to create a Feminist response to the dominance of male orientated porn magazines in the UK.

NB: I do not support or like porn, I just think that a way we can tackle the sexualisation of our world, where women are treat like sex objects, is to beat the industry at it's own game. Thus, by producing male porn magazines and more lesbian orientated magazines, it can highlight the pressures and exposure women have to face daily.

Cameron ponders how to spend his hard earned money...

2009-09-08T21:20:00.001+01:00

An image i made relating to the news that Cameron's main focus is cutting the food and drink bill of MP's. Some funny and relevant quotes around this are below:

"dodging the tough questions... the Liberal Democrats have proposed not renewing Trident. David Cameron wants to increase the price of salads" - Danny Alexander

“Putting up the price of beer in the House of Commons doesn't add up to an economic policy, nor to a sensible fiscal policy” - Alistair Darling

Corrigan says: Women, forget the City, go into engineering instead!

2009-09-08T19:18:00.000+01:00

Given the findings by the EHRC yesterday, which I blogged, I find it deeply unhelpful and pessmistic for Tracy Corrigan to be writing that women "should give the City a miss". She paints the depressing picture of the City businesses, of how women are endangered species, but then says, you know what, because of that, women - just don't bother. How defeatist is that? What we need to do when we find further evidence of inequality as the report did, is promote collective action of women backed by Feminist values of equality to achieve better conditions and pay for women like men have. This is what she should be saying. By conceding to defeat, she is accepting the inequalities as though they are given, like they are natural, where as instead she should be challenging the social and historical context and basis for their presence.

What she should be saying is that we need to promote national policies that tackle childcare and paternity/maternity issues, instead of saying women should accept their 'fate'. It does little to improve confidence to mobilise the wider Feminist goal of collective action when you get women themselves speaking about the dire prospects for women in the City as a reason they shouldn't even bother to try and obtain a career in the City. The City contains some of the most cleverest people around (and some of the most stupidest), they are needed to take the fight for equality.

She, as did Ian Duncan Smith, has a traditional attitude to the family childcare, as she explains the stress and pressure one male banker suffered from, and then says:

"Young women contemplating a similar career path should know what they are in for. Their chances of pulling in the big bucks are statistically slim. If they take maternity leave, their colleagues are more likely to poach their clients than offer support. Male peers are better at pitching for big bonuses; as one respondent told the commission: [Women] "don't tend to be the ones saying, 'If you don't pay me I am going to leave', so you end up greasing the squeakiest wheel." And when women come back from maternity leave, their careers may be permanently on ice."

Well this is precisely why I am arguing for paternity and maternity laws to be equalised. Then, it would not only be women who have the option for proper time off work when having children. Furthermore, there needs to be attempts to change the attitudes of society towards women working and having children. This will not be done by simply going, forget the big time, it's a man's world!

Finally, in an attempt to push women away from the City, she recommends we take up engineering. How thoughtful.

Kennedy and Campbell most missed by public...

2009-09-08T10:36:00.002+01:00

Good news for the Lib Dem's with a PoliticsHome poll showing that Charles Kennedy and Sir Menzies Campbell are the two political heavyweights most missed by the public.

This does lead to the question of why don't more of the public vote for us when our politcal figures have a great deal of respect. But then it also leads back to the route cause of the problem - the unequal voting system. This is encouraging news for us, and shows that if only we had a more equal electoral system, we would do a lot better.

Anyway, short but sweet blog post. But this is a boost of confidence like our poll risings of late. So something to smile about.

Is Young a bid to replace Bercow?

2009-09-08T09:08:00.002+01:00

It has to be taken into account the question of whether Sir George Young's appointment to take over Alan Duncan, where he will have an immediate effect on the expenses rules and the like, is a bid to unseat Bercow in the long run. We all know the stories around the Tories dislike of Bercow and how more than half of their core supporters would rather support UKIP's Nigel Farage than vote for Bercow.

Sir George Young was the Tories preferred candidate to replace the previous Speaker, Michael Martin. Maybe the Tories want to off seat some of Bercow's role and have their preferred candidate more kindly placed to influence discussion around expenses. Or maybe they want him to get more used to this type of political discussion ready for when they try and replace Bercow?

Stating why he didn't do it sooner, Cameron said that he had to give himself time to think about it, which again is interesting, as makes a stronger case for Young being a strategic decision.

This is purely speculation, but it is interesting to consider how much this had an effect on the decision.

Will the Lib Dems lead the way?...

2009-09-08T00:14:00.001+01:00

I have argued the case for dropping Trident all together for quite some time now. I don't know why the Lib Dem's want to have a cheaper alternative when it goes against our vision of a fairer and safer society. Anyway, I hope that the ComRes poll today, which showed how 58% of the public want to scrap the Trident scheme will provide them with a bit more confidence so they can be the first to say, you know what, we don't need an alternative, it is economically and morally corrupt - just forget it all together and start thinking about nuclear disarmament..

It would be nice to think that this would happen. I mean, we are talking about efficiency and what should be cut to 'aspirations'. We should also look at polices that should be forgotten all together, and Trident and it's alternatives is one of them. It is a waste of money, and does little to help us achieve the goal of a more sustainable and fairer society. It's all about power, but someone needs to take a bold step and lead nuclear disarmament.

This is the Lib Dem's chance to shine and show the public that we are first in leading the debate around Trident. However, we need to highlight as well as the economic issues, the important moral issues wrapped up in it too, as these are easily forgotten, even by our party.

Funny NHS Hannan picture...

2009-09-07T18:00:00.000+01:00

I have to post this picture that I found on the Tory Fail blog. I found it really funny, so here goes:

In support of Darrell Goodliffe for Middleton...

2009-09-07T15:27:00.000+01:00

I just wanted to write a quick blog about Darrell Goodliffe being selected to represent the Liberal Democrats in Middleton in Leeds. It wont be easy, as there will be a big fight against the BNP, but as I have said, the only way we can beat the BNP is through hard thought out politics, and Darrell is more than capable of doing that.

Anyways, hope you can have a look at his new blog about the campaign.

Good luck:)

My view on the BNP/Question Time situation...

2009-09-07T15:10:00.000+01:00

I know it might be a bit late, but I want to state my view about the news that BNP will be asked to take part with other parties on Question Time. I think that it is right that this step has been made, as if the political system recognises them as a political party, despite their obvious immoral and racist policies, then we have to treat them in the same way we treat other political parties. Therefore, they should be allowed onto programmes such as Question Time as other minority parties are, such as the Greens and UKIP. It is also worth nothing that UKIP's policies themselves are questionably racist too.

After all, the only way that we are going to beat the BNP is through politics. A testament to this is how they were able to win the seats in the European Elections. They are too able to play the anti establishment card, and thus go underground acting as an alternative protest vote to the traditional political systems. If we, and by we, I mean the respectable parties, could show them up for who they really are on a programme such as Question Time, it would help the public become more aware of their racist attitudes. The BNP play the "we are not racist" too often, and one only has to look at their membership criteria that only allows white Caucasians to join, to see how endemically racist they are.

Whilst I understand the controversy this will cause, as the BNP is a party fuelled with hatred and division, I have to agree with Question Time and I am pleased the Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and now Labour will share a platform with them. It is worrying that MP's such as Alan Johnson wont stand against BNP, as this still gives them something to play with and work in the whole we are the protest against this undemocratic system rubbish. The political parties need to show a united front against the BNP and show them up for what they really are, a fascist and racist party.

The EHRC paint a depressing picture of the true nature of gender inequality in the City...

2009-09-07T12:10:00.001+01:00

Well I think you might have guessed that I would comment on the Equality and Human Rights Commission's report into the 'shocking' state of the gender pay gap in the City. The findings highlight the inequality that women face even when they are doing the same jobs as men, with the same level of pressure - in fact, most likely more pressure seen, as they are the ones who are most likely to be stigmatised if they leave their children in childcare, for example.

Findings include:

39% difference between men and women's average salaries (47% including bonuses, overtime and performance related pay)
Women receive a fifth of male's bonuses (average - women £2,875 compared to male's £14,554)
95% of employers have at least one category or grade of job with a significant gender pay gap
Only 1 in 4 firms who were included in the survey have commissioned an audit to find if they have a gender pay gap or not
There were some companies who had good gender equality promoting practices, which need to be made exemplars of good practice

The EHRC are right to highlight the discriminating attitudes towards women from the start of the recruitment process, that leads to fewer women entering the top professions. There is also the impact of childcare, hence, why I repeatedly argue for a national childcare programme and equal paternity/maternity leave. It will be interesting to properly study the future Equality Bill to see what the full-scale proposals are to tackle the immoral gender pay gap.

Despite the revelations around Trevor Phillips of late, i have to say that i personally like him. His column in the Telegraph today around the findings shows how he is deeply connected to the issues of equality. However, as I have argued in the past, the EHRC would function better if it were split up into separate organisations to focus specifically on the wide range of discrimination there is. This is something that Phillips and Harman themselves recognise needs changing. Phillips highlights what I attempted to do around the controversy of what Harman said in her time as stand-in PM. Whilst she expressed her concerns of the under representation and inequality women faced in a harsh way, the points she made were proper and need serious acknowledgment. But often, as i stated, the comments were made into crude sexist jokes around how women looked.

However, despite these findings, Emma Clark seems adamant that there is no glass-ceiling really, it is the women's fault for not giving up their childcare responsibilities and pursuing a career in the big time. She claims that actually the City overall offers good polices for childcare, that allow women to work their way to the top. Has she just completely ignored what the findings show? The report showed how women from older ages are under-represented, arguably because of childcare commitments meaning their career progress has been stunted. To be honest, there are a few companies who do offer good childcare polices, but there are still the national polices of childcare and paternity/maternity leave that need to be sorted out. Furthermore, she forgets about the stigmatisation that is placed on women who give up childcare for a career, and that can be too much pressure and cultural disatification for someone to take. I agree women need to be more committed to careers in the City and the like, but this can only be achieved by proper national policies and changes.

But despite all this, the chairman of the British Bankers' Association, Angela Knight said:

“I don’t think we should leap to assumptions that everything is wrong and there is sex discrimination. There may well be issues that need to be addressed. Let’s look through these when we’ve seen the reasons we have got some of the discrepancies.”

Is this just another report pointing to the same old engrained discrimination, or will this help lead to the fundamental changes that need to take place in order to achieve greater sex and gender equality?

Smith helps show what the Tories really are...

2009-09-06T19:35:00.002+01:00

The whole tone of Iain Duncan Smith's article around the supposed 'dysfunctional' underclass is wrong and shows him up for what he is: a classical hard nosed Tory. As I have said before, the underclass as a concept is flawed and unsupported. Once again the Tories take an extreme example of horrific, immoral criminal behaviour, by two Doncaster brothers, aged 10 and 11, and say that this is a typical practice that occurs around the country, in our 'broken society'. This is simply not true, and to make out that there are millions of children out there doing the things those boys did, and things that people such as Karen Matthews did, is wrong, and misleading. But hey, that is what the Tories do. They exaggerate things like this to try and make a claim for popularism support, blaming the individuals for their problems instead of looking at the structural problems in society. I am not taking a complete structural focus, but you have to take this into account.

'Dysfunctional', 'breed' and 'maladjusted' are just some of the patronising and downgrading words that Smith uses when addressing his concerns around the so called 'underclass'. His article also displays his traditional family values that are common amongst traditional Tories (well most Tories, but at least the traditional ones admit it!). He consistently talks about the mother being the one who should look after the children. He makes out that it is the mother who is responsible for the dysfunction. Well what about the father then? This links to structural changes, we need to have better childcare policies, better paternity leave, to help families with bringing up kids. Simply stigmatising them as evil beings who just breed and breed is so wrong and illogical.

His concentration on the brain and how that influences people's behaviour is again telling of the Tories links to eugenics and arguments such as Survival of the Fittest. A clear quote that demonstrates this, and his sexist traditional attitudes is:

"At the top of the list is the need for the child to receive unconditional love, empathy and nurture from a parent. It is essential that a mother plays with and talks to the baby, as its brain slowly begins to imitate all that it sees and hears. Reading to the baby also stimulates its capacity to communicate."

What about the father then? It isn't just about love either. Structural factors play a part. Structural changes need to take place to help with the baby's development. It is quite worrying what Smith is saying, given that he is the chairman of the Centre for Social Justice, which informs Tory policies. He complains that people are not doing anything to stop this happening but what polices are the Tories really proposing, except stigmatising. The few policies they do offer attack civil rights showing how clearly their rhetoric of freedom conflicts with their immoral and controlling attitude towards families and relationships. Their policies do not tackle the structural inequalities in society. Smith is prime example of the Tories backwards attitudes that will become clearer when they get into power.

Money, money, money, it's a bankers' world...

2009-09-05T15:48:00.001+01:00

Sociology Lens has an interesting post today regarding Georg Simmel and his view of how money shapes interactions and social relations such as subordination and domination, in a rational and objective way. He states the importance of money, in how it forms the central aspect of the nexus of social life. He is known for influencing George Ritzer who replaced Simmel's money analysis with credit cards and stated how their introduction in the 50s has lead to an increasingly depersonalised and rational society, drawing on Weber's view of rationalisation. Simmel's views around the way and how money is exchanged in society provides us with useful insights into the values of society and social relations, relates clearly to the G20 discussions that have taken place today, as do Ritzer's - who helps show how important credit has become in the consumer society we live in today.

There have been protesters at the G20 summits holding up placards calling on governments to "stop letting money rule the world". Simmel's analysis of the importance of money resonates with these protesters claims. The way society views money and the way that money objectively shapes relations of power etc. is increasingnly being shown by the discussions being held in meetings such as G20, to be one of greed and inequality. Even though France and Germany have rightly backed down on their wish to cut back on fiscal stimuli, the G20 have managed to persuade these two closely tied countries to back down on their proposals to cap bonuses. Britain has therefore won on both accounts, however, it does help show how the value of money in society is one of great significance, and that there is a decreasing lack of morality around the way money is divided up. With the onset of surplus credit, we are seeing greater levels of debt. As I wrote the other day, it is interesting to take note of the depressing reactions to the decrease of personal debt, as high levels of debt are seen as the cornerstone of capitalism success.

I have stated before my view that there needs to be a cap on bonuses. There is a minimum wage so why can't there be a maximum wage? As I stated yesterday, there have been ongoing discussions for over a year now on how to make sure the scale of the economic crisis we have just witnessed does not return again. Well, I am afraid the situation has actually got worse. We are not getting tough enough with the bankers. For example, how is it right for the government to claim that signing on bonuses, such as Brian Hartzer the new head of RBS retail branch (70% state owned) received £1,000,000 worth of shares for agreeing to work there, are OK. And if that is not enough, he can continue to get more shares if he works for them for the next 2 years. This contradicts the message that the government wishes to promote with the G20 of tackling the non performance related bonuses. As 70% share holders, it is nonsense for Darling to claim that the government cannot do anything.

What the G20 shows us is that money is an ever increasing objective determiner of who has the power in society. The conflicts amongst the countries continue to also display the disarray in actually helping tackle the problems with bonuses and regulation, as things continue to look the same as they always have: corrupt.

Bonuses, banking, regulation blah blah blah...

2009-09-04T21:09:00.003+01:00

How many times over the last year have you heard Aliastar Darling say a variation of this?:

"Fundamentally I want a much more rigorous regulatory regime"

Well he said this on the 23rd of September 2008:

"It is clearer than ever that markets can't do this on their own. Nor can individual governments. In the past it was sufficient to ensure effective domestic regulation. That's not enough today. It's not a question of light-touch regulation against heavy-handed regulation. It's about effective regulation."

How about this on the 8th of July 2008:

"a regulatory solution at European level is now necessary"

What is telling is his gradual declining attack on bonuses and his pressing to concentrate on the importance of the totality of the regulatry system. As today he said when justifying his difference to France's and Germany's desire for a cap on bonuses, and the need to modify the bonus culture:

"it’s not just bonuses, bonuses are just a part of it"

This seems different to his attitude towards bonuses a year ago. He still recognises the need for reform, but with public anger seemingly displacing, he has assumed a different position to our neighbours, whilst also calling for us to be united to tackle the regulatory system in the increasing globalised world. It is telling to consider a comment on the 16th of February 2008 which highlights how his position has changed regarding banks from one that looked as though it would lead to reform, to one where the issue of bonuses is being increasingly swept under the carpet, probably in a last minute attempt to attract middle England:

"People get fed up if they see others getting great big bonuses and they can’t actually see what they did. It can be extremely frustrating."

What this shows is again that Labour play up to popularism concerns. They weren't ever going to tackle the bonus culture. They are going to leave it as it is. But what is the problem of curving bonuses? I mean, there is a minimum wage, how about a maximum wage? And I wouldn't stop short of just bankers - footballers, film stars and the likes get well too much for what they do in comparison to people who risk their life to help people, such as fire fighters and police. It only seems a minute ago, there were talks around Darling actually wanting to bring in legislative powers to tackle the bonus culture. But now, according to him, legalisation in terms of bonuses is unworkable and bonuses are not really the issue, other things involved in regulation are now more important. Well if we go back to his sound bites a year ago, you wouldn't think that would be his new position. Or actually, you probably would, given that Labour are as principled as the Tories.

All this is just talk, talk and more talk. It's infuriating. We are back at square one. Actually, we have regressed. I don't know what else can happen for the government and politics to open their eyes to the need for regulatory reform. The chance has ebbed. And there will most likely be another crash, and it will be telling to see if the same out jargon about regulatory reform will return. The Tories wont reform the regulatory system that much, just move people around to new quangos and confuse the system even more. The system is a mess, and the endless blah blah blahing that happens by people such as Darling is a testament to this.

Equality and the Liberal Democrats...

2009-09-04T16:24:00.000+01:00

"The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a 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."

The quote that forms the focus of our Liberal Democrat cards resonated when I heard someone ask what the differences are between Lib Dem and Labour values. I would have answered equality. Equality is central to our party's principles, whilst Labour claim to promote equality, we all know that many of the social divisions in society have become extensively worse. 'Libby' the bird of freedom that laments our cards is also a symbol of the equality that is central to our vision of a progressive society. However, a central theme to this blog that I wish to take is that, whilst equality is important to our party, there is a dis-juncture between our principle of equality and the practice of equality. To illustrate this point, I will take the policies we are advocating for women, education and the environment.

Women

We all know about the recent 'Real Women' campaign that lays down clearly policies that will help achieve greater equality between men and women. There are important policies that will attempt to tackle the gender pay gap, which is an engrained inequality in society and shows how little progress has been made since the 1970 Equal Pay Act. Ideas for promoting equality in terms of image ideals, where men are never really pressured to the extent women are around what they should look like, what they should wear form a key part of the policy document. There are no real expectations for men formed by the media and industries (e.g pornography), as there are for women. Furthermore, the childcare polices such as providing paternity/maternity leave equality, also helps tackle the unequal divisions there are for men and women. This shows how even an inequality for men, aka paternity leave, is an inequality for women, as women are the most likely to sacrifice a career to look after the kids due to societal pressures and the like.

This shows how the Liberal Democrat's ideas for tackling the divisions amongst women and men are about promoting equality. However, we have to consider the practical implications. Something that has turned into a bit of a controversy of late, is my dislike in Lembit Opik and the way he talks about women. This is a key example of how even though in principle we stand for better rights and more equality for women, in practice, what people such as Opik do is undermine this claim, and make us out to be like everyone else. How can we be seen as promoting equality for women with Opik writing degrading comments about women in a degrading newspaper towards women?

Education

This is something we have promoted as a cornerstone of our equality vision, but again a key example of the dis-juncture within our party's goals and actions. A key policy example within this umbrella framework would be that of tuition fees. This is something that as a party we have rightly used to show how we promote equality in education for the mass not the few. However, our recent apparent downgrading of tuition fees to being mere 'ambitions' by the leadership seems to have shown how we are not always true to this goal in practice. There is little point in having pupil premiums helping disadvantaged kids at school, if they are just going to end up with a massive lump of debt when they are older anyway. How is that promoting equality? We need to make sure that central policies such as that are maintained to make sure that our equality vision is not lost from the public's consciousness.

Environment

I have addressed our failure of maintaining principles of equality in terms of the environment before, with Trident. I find it slightly odd that as the environment is seen as a central plank in our vision of a better and more equal future, that we have failed to capitalise on the economic crisis in the sense of promoting our green vision with a great deal of momentum. We have failed to advocate our underlying view that Trident is wrong morally, for example. It is wrong to think that Trident would help us achieve our goal of an equal society. Simply focusing on the economic reasons for and against the scheme as we have done has failed to allow us get across our message of equality. Instead, we have fallen back on the green debate. This shows that our goal and one that many hope to achieve in politics that of equality between economic and environmental growth is not being met in practice. I wrote a blog post recently addressing how the whole political spectrum have failed to really get to grips on this vision of economic and environmental growth, and that commission after commission is failing to mobilise our political elite into doing anything to tackle the true scale of environmental problems.

Whilst I do believe we are the party with the strongest claim to equality, we are not without faults. There needs to be more concentration on the implementation of our equality vision, to narrow the gap between principles and practice.

The City is the talk of the town...

2009-09-03T17:01:00.001+01:00

With talks yesterday by EU finance ministers leading to a France-German consensus to end the bonus culture, there has been a great deal of discussion in the news today about Britain's (Darling's) different take on bonuses, and the relative importance of the City's size. There is also the G20 this weekend, where Brown will hope to persuade France and Germany to keep on supporting the high level of fiscal stimulus we have at the moment. However, with their economies doing well, there is a great deal of worry for Britain with the OECD predicting we will face the worst recovery amongst other leading economies . Osborne has also sided with Germany and France, calling for the fiscal stimulus to be cut. There is however, a worry in this. We have to make sure that we do not reduce the help we give to the economy too soon, as we may well end up with a W shape recession.

The 'back to business' returning attitude in the City is another strong factor that could lead us to having a W shape recession. Anatole Kaletsky wrote an interesting article around the size of the City, which I however, disagree with. He lists a host of jobs such as cleaners and taxi drivers that relate to the financial sector, and moans about everyone complaining about it being too big. However, I can spot an immediate flaw to his argument. He is defining the financial sector in what many people call too big in too wider terms. Many of the jobs he listed are included within the service sector. The part of the sector most people are annoyed with are the banking and big companies aspects.

I find it a slightly odd argument that to be successful the City has to be big. What about efficiency? What about splitting up the investment and retail banks so that they are not 'too big to fail'? This shows that the City would be successful, and most likely more successful due to efficiency if it was scaled down. In respect to his remarks around Germany, I have to add that their economy is the largest in Europe, and so to make out that a financial tax would not matter as much to them as it would to us is a tad illogical.

Once again the argument of freely available debt is seen in a positive light as he claims that this has meant:

"The growth of Britain’s financial sector may have widened income inequalities but that does not mean it has made British society more unequal."

What a load of rubbish. People do not actually own this money, how can that help lower the inequalities in society? It may in face value, but when you look deeper, inequalities are widening by the day. The economic crisis highlighted strongly how there is a group of elites at the top who control the production, but even if they mess up they will still get that big fat bonus, anyway. The quote above is totally illogical, as is the article.

I agree with Adrian Hamilton's concerns that there is too much focus on curbing bonuses, and that this will not solve everything - as it wont. However, I disagree with how he argues this, as he makes out that bonuses are not involved in the structural changes that would need to take place to allow for change. The most likely reason that many of the more technical problems within the banking sector has not been openly discussed, is precisely because they are technical. It is popularism to only talk of the bonus reform, however, just because it is popularism does not mean it does not need to be implemented. Of cause it does. But so much needs to be changed in the banking and City, but I am increasingly feeling that as with issues such as the environment, there are endless commissions and G20 meetings talking about what needs to be done and who wants what, but in the end of it, nothing will be done anyway. After all, the Labour and Tory leaderships are not principled enough to stick their neck on the line to help tackle the banking problems. Well in the Tories case, it is nothing to do with principles, purely ideological.

More discussions around the financial sector and banking shows how really there has not been much progress in terms of the much needed reform. We have the big bonuses returning, and there has not been the much needed separation of casino and retail banks. Sadly, it all looks like a farse. Little learnt and little done.

School selection rhetoric...

2009-09-02T12:51:00.003+01:00

In a very well thought out article, Melissa Benn talks about a key issue I have discussed several times before, that being divisive education institutions that foster selectivity. There are still certain grammar schools in certain counties that still use the 11 plus, such as Lincolnshire. Furthermore, independent schools model their entry requirement exams on the 11 plus. Therefore, the 11 plus still fosters the selective attitudes that the public schooling sector has, which breaded like a rabbit when the tripartite system was introduced. What Benn rightly argues for is for the parties to stop just talking about how selective schooling is, and how it needs to be tackled, and actually do something about it.

She rightly mostly questions the Tories ability to keep to their rhetoric on the problems of selective schools and the virtues of diverse and representative schooling. Michael Gove is a key example of his anti grammar schools rhetoric but pro grammar school practice. The Tories have a long history with grammar schools that will be hard to abandon if they attempt to tackle the divides that grammar schools cause.

I agree with her calls to end grammar schools and switch to a wholly comprehnsive schooling system for the public sector. I also don't agree with the elitism that private schooling fosters, but this post is wholly addressing the public sector. She highlights a campaign called Comprehensive Future, which is trying to abolish the selective aspects to our public schooling by changing grammar schools to comprehensive schools. This would be the only way that we could get politicians properly thinking about comprehensive schools, and ways that the system could be improved so that we help those who are less privileged and are either put off or live to far away to apply for grammar schools.

Stigmatising children at 11 if they fail their 11 plus is disgraceful. There needs to be an end to this selective rubbish that is illogical in a seemingly diverse and representative society. However, the Tories, we know, are too concerned with their Swedish based schooling systems to really give thought to how they would overcome the problems around selection. So there is little chance that the concerns of many about the schooling system will be addressed in the near future.

A fall in personal debt is not a bad thing!

2009-09-01T23:27:00.000+01:00

I really don't understand why a fall in consumer debt has been attributed as a bad thing. Well I do. It is because we live in a consumer driven society that believes success is managed by how much people spend. But we need to step back and really think what has happened. People are starting to get more control over their debt. At least ordinary people, if banks aren't going to, have realised that they need to be more careful with their budgets, and that the time of constant spending is well and truly over.

McFall in response to the news that personal debt has fallen for the first time since records began in 1993, down to £1.457 trillion, said:

“People naturally feel under pressure, they want to feel a little bit safe, there is a natural tendency there.”

Why is he making this out to be a bad thing? I really don't get it. What's good for individuals to have excessive access to credit that isn't actually theirs? This is precisely the reason that we got into the economic mess. The attitudes of spend spend spend has become so engrained in people and our society that the way we now measure the success of the markets is by how much debt people are in. Absolutely insane. We wouldn't say a business was doing well if it was in a lot of debt, quite the opposite in fact. So why is it any different for individuals?

This type of response to a reduction of consumer debt actually shows that we are far from moving on from the type of consumer driven attitudes and culture that lead to the economic crisis. I personally, would want people to see the reduction as a good thing for the economy, and good news for the hope that we may move away from the "what I buy is what I am" attitude.

Why don't we just remove the whip from Opik?

2009-08-31T19:05:00.000+01:00

So what has Lembit Opik been talking about recently? Is it the NHS contraversary? Is it parliamentary reform? Is it the Megrahi? Is it Afghanistan? No, it is the so called 'silly season'. He uses the example of news coverage of the La Tomatina festival in a small Spanish Town, where they throw tomatoes at each other, as an example of the 'silly season', and how journalists need politicians to survive. In attempt of creating his own sort of news story, his sexist, misogynistic views come into play, as he sets out his desire for Nicole Ford to be dressed in only fruit and veg, whilst overseeing politicians throwing tomatoes at journalists on their first day back at Parliament. Does he really have anything serious to say? I mean politicians rely on journalists too, it is a symbiotic relationship. Furthermore, how the hell can a Liberal Democrat MP write these degrading comments about women and not be called up for it?

Expounding off the last point, there has been quite a lot of talk about political figures standing up for what they believe in and going against the party line, such as Dan Hannan and Frank Field. I think that principled politics is a must, and that politics should not always be dictated by a consensual style. However, there is not taking the party line, and then there is going completely against the core beliefs. Opik does the latter, as his views and attitudes towards women go completely against the Lib Dem's stance on equal opportunity for women. How can we seriously advocate a 'Real Women' campaign whilst having Opik write the rubbish he does in the porn obsessed Daily Sport?

You look at the other two parties and how the MPs who have columns in newspapers write about serious issues. For example, whilst Opik is busy fantasying about fruit and veg, Boris Johnson was writing about transport, and Alan Johnson was writing about alcohol ASBO's. How the hell are we ever going to be a serious party if we have MPs such as Opik writing this sort of rubbish? This sort of laid back attitude has been so clearly reflected this summer, as we have failed to get our views across in so many important debates, such as the NHS.

You may agree, you may disagree, but my own personal preference is for Opik to have the whip removed. He undermines the seriousness of our party, and conflicts so abruptly with our aims and beliefs of equality. The way he talks about women and the degrading images of women in the so called newspaper, The Daily Sport, is embarrassing to our party. I feel we should have a more credible candidate put in place for next election.

"It will be jelly bean Asbos for sugared-up kids next"...

2009-08-31T13:06:00.000+01:00

...An amusing but unfortunately true analogy by Liberty policy director Isabella Sankey, regrading the Labour policy to bring in some more pointless, unhelpful and stigmatising ASBOs, this time for alcohol abuse, otherwise known as a Drinking Ban Order. Writing in the Guardian today, Alan Johnson attempts to make it clear he is not generalising the whole of the youth drinking culture, but for those who do step out of line, even though he does not consider the reasons for why they may be doing so, will possibly face "banning from particular streets or areas, or even banning from buying alcohol or drinking in public." Justifying the claims, the Home Office say that alcohol related crime costs the country billions of pounds each year. Whilst I do not dispute this, do they seriously think that stopping people from going certain places will be cheap? Do they think that the added bureaucracy, increasingly the intensity of our red tapped society will not cost the tax payer quite a lot of money?

As well as financial implications of the policy, there is also the issue that it simply will not work. As I briefly mentioned above, the policy fails to address the reasons for why people go out and drink their soul away. Simply having a partial aspect of the policy addressing this, with the courts being able to offer alcohol misuse courses to those who are criminalised, is a post hoc and unhelpful attempt of helping the individual overcome their reasons for drinking. Furthermore, the participant has to pay for the course, not the government, and this could be anything from £120 to £250. Clear incentive there don't you think? The government need to focus more on preventive measures, and look at the society in a systemic way, so that they consider the structural causes for why people drink. There is more, but only slightly more, hope of a Labour government considering this in comparison to a Conservative government. The Liberal Democrats, and this is not a bias comment, it is the truth, are the only party that reiterate the need for preventive measures and the need to address the reasons for problems such as drink related abuse. Furthermore, we also offer the most comprehensive restorative policies.

Banning youths from drinking in public will just drive the problems into a private issue, and fails to tackle the underlying issues that cause the excessive drinking. These concerns are echoed by the important Liberty campaign group, who's policy director I spoke of earlier remarked:

"How many times can you spin a new 'crackdown' without tackling the causes of offending behaviour?"

This just reinforces exactly what I was saying. Worryingly, Liberty say everything the Liberal Democrats should be saying. We should be focusing on the cause and effect relationship in relation to alcohol instead of promoting policies that wont work, such as the minimum pricing of alcohol, as people who want to drink are prepared to pay a few pounds extra to do so.

Even the chairman of the Magistrates Association, John Thornhill, has doubts around the policy:

"We are not satisfied that these will work as effectively as perhaps some of the Asbos have. Clearly the issue is about tackling why it is these people have an alcohol dependency."

Exactly! Whilst I don't agree with him that any ASBO has ever worked, the issue is WHY do people suffer from alcohol abuse. Simply slapping an ASBO on them will do little to help improve their well-being. Again, another gimmicky, wasteful policy that further adds to the criminalisation and stigmatisation around problems that need more thought and care when being addressed.

Portillo gets his knickers in a twist...

2009-08-30T16:52:00.000+01:00

Charles Murray is classified as a Sociologist, but is despised by many who do Sociology because of his racist, untrue, and unsupported claims about the 'underclass' and welfare. It did not surprise me to read Michael Portillo citing Murray as a heroic theorist who helps point to the problems around our welfare system. Murray's views are very contraversial, as for example, in his book the Bell Curve, he links IQ to genetics, arguing that IQ is the best predictor for a person's social conditions, such as their social class and education and claims that black people are genetically 'thicker' so are more prone to suffer from worse social conditions. To even being highlighting the flaws with this analogy would take a long time, so for now, I will just draw attention to the books racist and fascist funding from the eugenic promoting Pioneer Fund.

Portillo once again draws on those contraversial and massaged figures, which Theresa May used and Polly Tonybee rightly pulled her up on in her article yesterday. Portillo's claims that Beveridge with his five social evils, would advocate a world that Portillo would like, so one where benefits would be only accessible for those in absolute poverty, so one not based on a moral basis to help the disadvantaged. If Beverdige had wanted a world like that, he never would have advocated the solutions he did. Sickeningly, Portillo even seems to be supporting the workhouse conditions as a way to deter people from not working. Does he even consider those with disabilities? Illnesses? No, he doesn't.

To say living on benefits for most people is a 'lifestyle choice' is utterly offensive and misguided. Yes, there are the odd few who do live on benefits out of choice. Yes, there are the few cases such as Karen Matthews. But no, this is not a reprensetaive cross section of those who are on benefits. And how about white colour crime, hey? He talks about the loss of stigmatisation around benefits for lower income families, families who actually need money to survive, but what about those multi millionaires ripping off the shareholderes, or making banks nearly crash and pocket a massive pension in return, not mentioning any names Fred Goodwin. There has never been a stigmatisation around white colour crime, and the fact he is writing an article about benefit fraud shows how the stigmatisation around benefit living has not gone. He claims that the cost of living on benefits has not been talked about until recently. Are you serious? These debates have been going on for years. Was he actually a real part of the Thatcher government? Also, what about middle class benefits? Those benefits that help with home payments, for example? He doesn't complain about them, does he?

He talks about benefits not being morally affordable. What he is calling for are for those on benefits to be stigmatised again, even though there is a relativity small number of people who actually want to be on benefits. His admiration for Murray is shown again, as he talks about the flawed concept of the 'underclass', who he seems to think are roaming our streets pursing violence and drugs. Is he really a serious politician? Well, saying that he is a Tory. But honestly, this is just ridiculous. It is just another attempt of Tory waffle, that is attempted to promote their theme of a 'broken society', whilst they pimp it up in their expensive homes with their expensive lifestyles. The majority of them have not had a days hardship. How can he claim the stigmatisation around benefits has gone if he has not actually had to sign on and claim them? A snobby claim, if I do say so myself.

His remarks of the deserving and undeserving poor link to another known right wing nut case, that of Herbert Spencer. I wrote about his ideas yesterday in reference to the abolition of tax credits, May talked about. In specific reference to deserving and undeserving poor, Spencer said that those who are deserving poor such as the elderly and sick, deserved to have benefits, whilst the undeserving did not as they did not work. This again shows Tories to be closely affiliated with traditional right wing eccentric views, that would fail to fit into our increasingly diverse society.

It is surprising that Portillo is supporting Murray, when Murray himself is homophobic, with his strong support of traditional marriage and families. However, in this, he is also a hypocrite, after Murray has been divorced himself. To see Portillo state his support for Murray so avidly as he has today, is quite worrying. This strikes me as something that runs through the Tory party, and a theme that would destroy this country if and most likely when the Conservatives come to power.

The Tories think raising the Inheritance Tax Threshold is more principled than having Tax Credits...

2009-08-29T12:49:00.000+01:00

With the news that the Tories want to scrap Tax Credits, it is interesting to remember the conflict caused within his own party a few weeks ago when Cameron said that middle class Tax Credits would be stopped. This therefore, looks as though the Tories have pragmatically decided that instead of appearing to attack the more comfortable in society, that they will instead take the sometimes-crucial means of support away from the poor as well. Polly Tonybee is right when she says that policies such as scrapping the Tax Credits will make social inequities more engrained, and that in order to tackle the social problems they attribute to our 'broken society', they have to, as Tonybee puts it, "run hard up a down escalator to stop a natural pull towards inequality growing greater." My only problem with Tonybee's article is that she does not rebuke the concept of 'broken society', the sub title where she predicts they won’t fix 'broken Britain', acts as an endorsement of the flawed and unhelpful concept.

So why scrap Tax Credits then? Well the Tories claim that the principle of Tax Credits is all wrong. I mean of cause that totally rings true don’t it. I mean obviously, increasing the inheritance tax threshold is so much more principled, isn't it? Of cause it isn't. However, we are talking about a hardnosed Tory party, who try to appear as though they have changed and actually have a sense of connection with those who are considerably more disadvantaged than the majority of their MPs. Theresa May tried to justify the stance on Tax Credits by claiming that the Tax Credits had actually masked instead of helped tackle poverty. Whilst I agree that the Tax Credit system can unfairly help the better off families, a lot of the time they help people stay above the level of subsistence, and act as an all-important bridge from poverty. The Liberal Democrats rightly call for Tax Credits to be ended for high earners, but have also rightly not called for the whole of the Tax Credit system to be abolished as the Tories now have. Abolishing it would cut much needed help for lower earning income families. It would be more acceptable for the Tories to do this, if they actually had some useful policy to tackle poverty, but all they do is flap their arms in the air complaining about how run down our society is, with no real means to solve the problems other than blaming the individuals.

A major problem of the Tory party, is that their policy ideas always lack any real substance. For example, May says:

“Solving poverty is also about aspiration and skills rather than giving people extra financial help. And solving it is about tackling educational failure, antisocial behaviour, debt problems and addiction, and of course it’s about work.”

The first part of the quote reminds me of some kind of natural selection argument that Herbert Spencer would be proud of. Let us have a big experiment where we cancel any real financial help for people on low incomes and leave them out in the social markets to try to carve their own living. If they have 'natural' skills and ability they will rise to the top, if not, they will fall down and die out anyway. A crude and awful summary of what natural selection arguments in terms of human ability advocate, and sadly, what she is saying reminds me of them. Whilst she recognise the issues that need to be addressed in the second sentence, the Tories have no structural policies to tackle these problems, and instead say all this is due to individual ability and aspiration. They don't consider the structural limitations that those who are disadvantaged face.

The Tory HQ later after May's speech, showed further conflict and mayhem in the Tory party, as they said that they did not want to abolish Tax Credits. Well that is either a stark U-turn, or a complete division amongst the Tory party - obviously, the latter is the case. It is just a further sign of what Mandelson dubbed the Tories' 'two-faces', as they say one thing in public and believe another in private. What also has to be said regarding May's speech is that her use of figures seems to be a complete massage and fabrication of reality. For an interesting outline of how flawed her figures are, I recommend you read the Poly Tonybee article.

What this shows is that the Tories are a party who say they are the voice of the many and not the few, but that in practice they are really the cold Tory party they always have been. They obviously will be elected next year, but I feel that all these conflicts and debates, whilst being ignored by the public for now, will come back karmatically at them some time when in power.

Fay Weldon a Feminist? Don't make me laugh...

2009-08-28T17:49:00.004+01:00

Why do I keep finding myself so surprised? The attitudes that some people have in society towards the women and men divide continues to annoy me. Jan Moir has an interesting article in the Daily Mail today, which has some points I agree with, but mainly ones I disagree with.

The first part of her article that addresses the comments that often surround Anne Robinson is something I disagree with. She says that women who believe that Anne Robinson's cosmetic surgery is unnecessary are jealous, and makes out that it is a requirement for being a presenter in a modern day media world. This is the type of attitude that needs to be changed. It shouldn't be the case that Robinson only feels comfortable when she looks'younger'. It is fake and does little to bolster the attempts to tackle ageism and pressures around how women look.

However, her highlighting how Duncan Bannatyne never has any snide remarks about his appearance despite his cosmetic surgery, actually illustrates an important point. Women can't win. They can leave themselves how they are. Face the criticism for not fitting the male defined 'ideal image' of what a women should be. Or they could have cosmetic surgery. Fulfil what men want. But then still face criticism. But I really think this is an age specific practice. As models who have breast implants, for example, don't exactly face criticism from the males like Robinson does. I mean, our own Lembit Opic, who I despise, writes in a sickening porn 'newspaper'.

The part of the article that I do agree with however, is the damning of so called Feminist Fay Weldon. Advocating women to not speak about their feelings to men, and basically put up and shut up, Fay believes equality can be formed. Her comments on rape are to be remembered as thoughtless, and sums up her overall supposed Feminist views. How about faking orgasms and not batting an eye lid at your partners porn obsession? All part of her 'amazing' Feminist plan for equality. Absolutely rubbish if you ask me. Masturbating over other women, whilst in a relationship, even if they are not known in person, to me, is a little insensitive. Especially, if those women make real women feel as though they have to change how they look to keep their relationships alive. I totally disagree with almost everything Fay Weldon says.

Rightly, Moir claims that Weldon's comments are a disgrace to those suffragettes who chained themselves to the railings of Downing Street to fight back against the dominance and unequal control men have in society. Fay's comments start to undo this, and start to give air to the Feminist bashing males' such as 'Angry Harry', who I wrote a response to yesterday.

Again, Moir and I face disagreement when she claims:

"It just seems sensible to accept that domestic life runs smoother when there is a clear division of labour."

So what is 'clear' then? Yes, if women want to stay at home and men want to go to work, well yes, I fully support that. But, if women want to go to work as do the men, but women have to stay at home because of the societal attitudes and stigmatisation towards women who go to work with young children, which happened to Sarah Palin, then I disagree. What she fails to understand is that the battle for a 'clear' division of labour is far from attained. We need policies such as a comprehsensive childcare policy, better pay, reforms around paternity and maternity leave so that it provides more scope for equal childcare activities.

Some very interesting points were brought out in the article. Whilst I do agree with her criticism of the so called Feminist, Fay Weldon, on reflection, there is quite a lot of her article I disagree with. Fay Weldon is wrong to call herself a Feminist in my eyes. A Feminist who supports the status quo? News to me.

Sexualisation of our world...

2009-08-28T10:53:00.005+01:00

We live in a world where walking into a local shop is like walking into your own little porn movie. Whilst I have made it clear in the past, I do not agree with porn, I feel it is up to the individual to decide if they want the experience. However, where is the choice when walking in to buy a paper? There is none. As stated before, there are no male porn magazines. Therefore, what this fosters is primarily the sexualisation of women, as the magazines encourage the view to all ages, both men and women, that looking at women in simple sexual terms is acceptable. This is wrong, and leads to unrealistic expectations for men and women.

The same goes for films and T.V, as the way society represents women makes women who feel insecure, as they watch evening T.V with unrealistic women plastered on adverts and programmes, as in the wrong, as that is what society expects of women. If only there was the equivalent for men, so they had some incline to how it feels.

I read a passage recently in a book called, Gender: A Sociological Readerby Steven Seidman, about the sexualisation of love, which provides an interesting sociological context to this discussion. He argues that after the Victorian era we saw the sexualisation of love, as we moved away from the Victorian's view of love in pure spiritual terms. He says that the spiritual definition of love had allowed for more freedom amongst homosexual couples, as love was not defined by sex. However, with the advent of Sexology we have gradually seen love sexualised, which lead to the increase in homophobia. Some theorists argue that this sexualisation is a good thing, as it allows greater sexual expression, Seidman is one of those. Whilst others, and I am on this side of the debate, believe that it has created a range of new problems and isolations, such as STD's spreading, unwanted pregnancies and the porn industry to name a few. All this, that is categorical to our sexualised society, in my view, has aided the isolation of women in particular. The sexualisation process has mainly focused on enhancing women as sexual beings, whilst men have been seen as the benefactors to this. Even lesbian relationships are seen in the context of benefiting men, not enhancing women's sexual expression, as Seidman believes.

This all goes to show the type of world we now live in. The isolation of women could not be any clearer, but at the same time, due to the ways in which sexualisation has become so engrained in our society; it is seen as so natural, so little challenge it. The porn industry, for example, is seen as a 'liberal' part of our society. Let us have freedom of expression. However, to me, it is abuse of women, and surely abusing women is not acceptable in our society? It is part of the continued pressures placed upon women, who are made to accept that this is life, and that their husbands and partners can look at other women if they want to. How this is right is beyond me. I am sure men would like their wife’s and partners going to the local bar, flirting with a few of the males, then coming home and watching a male porno whilst the male is asleep. I think not. This relates to a discussion I heard on the train recently, when I man told his wife that it is easy to pull women in Sheffield. How wrong and vulgar is that!? I felt like hitting him where it hurts, but bit my lip and I think if I remember rightly, wrote an angry blog post!

Anyway, this post could go on forever, and you are by now very used to my views on women and the sexualised society. To this end, I hope there will become a day when the oppression and insecurities women have to face is not seen as a 'normal' part of their life.

In reply to 'Angry Harry' - Because the strive for gender equality is worth the effort...

2009-08-27T21:08:00.007+01:00

In a recent blog post of mine, about the need for Feminism, the so called 'Angry Harry' , commented providing me with a link to a somewhat angry rant about how trying to achieve gender equality is a complete waste of time. I have replied to the comment, but I felt that it warranted its own separate blog post (but the comment forms the framework of this blog), as the claims on the website, are to be frank, quite absurd. I do agree, there will never be complete equality, but there needs to be greater equality. It is totally wrong to rant on about how it is pointless to try to make things better between women and men. It appears as though, his views around equality being unattainable, are framed by his wrong conception of what equality actually is. For example, he says:

"Question: Should 'women' have more votes than 'men'? For those who think, yes, (because there are more women voters than men voters) then it follows that they also believe that those in a minority should have less of a say in what affects them."

Who said that mainstream feminism or I wanted women to vote more?? We just want to have more equality, not sexism against men. One vote is enough for me. For him to use the question of whether women or men should have more votes seems so nonsensical, it is missing the point of what others and I are arguing. This just shows how misconceived his view of equality is, no wonder he does not think it is worth striving for.

He argues that instead, equality can be judged by how happy people are with their life, and position in society:

"The best that can be hoped for is that people are happy with what is happening."

Well this therefore contradicts his view that there is no need to try to obtain greater equality. If he sees equality in terms of how happy people are with their relative position in terms of sex and gender, then I can tell you, there are many men and women who are far from happy. I am defiantly not happy with the way society is often run, where men quite easily have the upper hand. Many men and women are NOT happy with how they fall in society, hence Feminist movements and other political movements trying to change this.

His claims that propaganda frames the way men and women feel about their position in society, further shows how naive his way of looking at things is. Women do not just feel marginalised because of the pay gap statistics published in the papers; it is because they are submerged in a dominant culture of men. I can vouch for real experience of feeling uneasy in situations because of the male/female divide; in fact, I did a blog earlier today, about how this runs in Lib Dem circles too.

He believes that women asking to be paid the same amount of money as men for doing the same jobs is "strange" if the man has say been doing the job for longer, or if the women's physical ability means she has to carry 1 instead of 2 bricks (his stupid example). I think he is the one with a "strange" view of equality. Why should it matter how long someone has been doing a job, if they are doing the same job they should be paid the same amounts of money. He is so finicky it is untrue!

However, whilst he believes that in terms of a stereotypical male job such as bricklaying, women should not be paid the same as men (obviously showing his sexist conception of what women should really be doing - kitchen and bedroom) that men however, SHOULD get the same amount of money as women for working in a cantine. So what is the difference then?! I have never come across the arguments he puts forward around the ways he says Feminists would challenge the wages men and women get for doing a cantine job. I have never met a Feminist who wants women to be paid more than men for jobs, so it is an obvious attempt to bash down Feminism, because he is frankly a sexist tradition male.

He claims that Feminists would suddenly reverse their opposition to the unfairness of childcare if more men stayed at home, and reverse their views on the gender pay gap, if women earned more than men. I say that is totally wrong, and misconceived, as the rest of his rant is. Can you please tell me how that works? What Feminists are arguing for is equality, not matriarchal society (well the bulk of Feminists anyway, ignore the radicals). I think if this did happen, the whole world would have had their brains wiped, then socialised, quickly, in a world where the culture was one of female instead of male dominance. There is no way this will ever happen in a world so controlled by males.

In his winging about how unfair life is for males, who we need to remember, are less burdened by the relentless ties and pressures in society such as childcare, porn, work and health - he complains about the education system saying:

"If boys do better than girls educationally then it is argued that there is bias in the system. If girls do better than boys then it is argued that this is so because girls work harder and/or because they are more intelligent."

I do Sociology, and this comment is without foundation. Numerous studies show that males are made to feel as they have to act masculine by their peers, and so are less likely to try hard at school. His claim makes out that Feminists are biological determinists who believe that women are naturally clever, so they are theorists who would support the racist and right wing Charles Murray Bell Curve argument. They are not! The biological arguments are something that was challenged by Feminists along with his sexist attitudes several decades ago.

To me, it is not Feminists who are twisting the evidence to demonise men, as he puts it, it is actually he who is demonising women with his twisting of the evidence and snide comments. He claims that there are two reason for Feminists being devil like. One being that they are all mainly lesbians (so you have to fancy other women to actually want to improve your own position in society then? I bet he quite likes lesbians however, if they are in a good old porn DVD!) who hate men because of past experiences. Well firstly, there are many Feminists who are not lesbians, it is not a requirement for Feminism. Secondly, it is not about hating men as he says it is, it is about standing up for things they believe in and things they do not want others to suffer from. The fact he has to accept is that, yes men are rapped, yes men do suffer from domestic violence and so on, but that they mainly affect women, and men do not have to suffer from half the pressures women have to suffer from, as I documented in a previous blog. He also believes that Feminists stir up hatred because they have to make a living out of it. Well what he forgets is the serious injustice in society that people with a moral compass are fighting to change. It is not equality, and it is not a happy arrangement to have 19.3% of Parliament as women, for example.

What his rant appears to show to me, is his fear that women and Feminists are making progress. He is sadly trapped in a time warp of the Victorian era and before, where women had so little freedom. His arguments are flawed as the basis of his argument, the definition of equality, is misconceived. He says that all that has been attempted to try to achieve equality shows how it is not attainable. Well to be honest, he needs to realise he is part of the problem. As I repeatedly argue, we never will get true equality, but to get further equality people’s attitudes such as his need to change.

Anyway, I have said what I want to say and feel better for it. I hope that he is one of a minority, as his views do little to help the needed cause for greater equality.

Rant over.

WCED (1987) - Copenhagen (2009): Will we ever take the environment seriously?

2009-08-27T12:11:00.001+01:00

How long have people been talking about the effects of global warming and climate change on the environment? Well there was the Limits to Growth argument in the 60s/70s, which pessimistically (but could be proven to be quite correct) theorised that the world would eventually run out of resources. This argument was however, taken over by the 1987 WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) definition of sustainable development, which saw environment and economic development as compatible. The Limits to Growth argument has returned in deep ecologist movements, but the WCED definition of sustainable development remains central to political discussions around the environment.

So why have we not really achieved anything since 1987? Well maybe because the politicians thought simply constructing the concept would help keep the environmentalist happy as they looked as though they were doing something and the capitalist happy because it is not at the expense of the economy. However, in many of the environmental debates, such as Heathrow, we have seen the mainstream politicians fall to what are known as the pollution control perspective to sustainable development, who prioritise the economy over the environment. There simply has not been enough focus on achieving a true sustainable environment, and many have forgot about the sustainable development's concepts concentration on the poor.

This may relate to how ecological modernisation has become the 'in thing' to use when talking about the environment. This focuses on consumption as being the way to get out of the environmental crisis. This can be shown by the government’s promotion of eclectic cars, for example. However, the green products are very expenses and limited to buy, and there are many who say the conception of spending our way out of green problems is as bad as spending our way out of a recession.

John Prescott has been a useful reminder of the WCED (1987) conception of sustainable development, as he rightly reminded the rich countries of their obligation to the poorer countries in achieving a sustainable society:

“...burden has got to be more on the rich countries than on the developing countries”

However, how long have we been talking about having an equal north and south divide? Well in mainstream debates, since 1987. However, we still feel it is necessary to have commissions after commissions, with the Copenhagen agreement being seen as, like the WCED 1987 was, the final chance to save the environment. Gro Harlem Brundtland is again charring the commission as she did the WCED, it seems as though history is repeating itself, with little learnt.

There is little wonder the environmental demonstrators are campaigning for a week at Greenwich, as the political world talk the talk, but fail to actually act on it. The disregard the mainstream politicians have shown towards the environment is telling, as there has been little concentration for example, when discussing Trident, as something that is environmentally damaging, as well as economically damaging, not to mention the moral dimension.

This shows that the political debate has to stop just talking about the environment, and actually act. Why just have countless number of commissions and agreements, if they are not actually ever going to be implemented? What this calls for is a radical green programme, so that green issues are not always on the fringe of important political discussions.

An isolated female in a Lib Dem world...

2009-08-27T07:45:00.009+01:00

I am sorry to say it, but past experiences in a Lib Dem world so to speak, has really made me think that true equality is never attainable. To achieve this, we would have to destroy the entire culture that our society is based upon, and start afresh, in a world where women are not seen as the originator of sin, or that their two most suitable locations, is that of the kitchen and the bedroom. Of course, there are other women in the Liberal Democrats. But, what I am really referring to, is the way that I and most likely other women in the Lib Dems will feel when we are more likely than not surrounded by predominately male members, councillors and MPs. This is something that has struck me more of late, and really makes me question whether my belief that the Lib Dems are a party of equality, is actually mobilised in terms of women's rights.

To clarify further, this is not a specific problem of the Lib Dems. This is a systemic problem in politics and society as a whole. Sadly, this will (in my opinion) never be resolved completely, but there is a way to push for greater equality, if not parity between men and women. The way men dominant politics makes it hard for women to mobilise themselves effectively within a party system. Policies such as Jo Swinson's Real Women campaign are useful, but will they ever become implemented? Does the leadership put it's full weight behind these types of proposals? In honesty, the answer is no.

This is why campaigns such as the Downing Street Project are useful. They cross over party lines and try to gather support across the political spectrum from women, who like me, often feel disillusioned with politics and the way women can be made to feel out of the debate. The party system itself therefore obviously has a key part to play in the isolation of women by all political parties, as it is hard when there is male dominance in local politics, for women to break through and make a mark for themselves. Even then, once they get into the top positions, as shown by Harman, it is still hard for them to speak about true equality without being shot down by the men who would rather Harman was a stunning young blonde, so they could at least have some gratification from what they don't want to hear.

Whilst it can be wholly disheartining and can make me distrust many more things than just politics, I think in paradox the way that women are often treated in politics, and how they often come across as endangered species with their low representation, actually spurs women on to try and change things so this is no longer the case. As stated above, I don't think that true equality will ever be obtainable; however, as stated above, there has to be some change to the way politics and society as a whole works. Far too often, women are made to feel as though they are second class citizens. Equality in terms of democracy and principles can be obtained if we strive together...

12 year delay for Lord reforms! You've had 12 years!...

2009-08-26T12:38:00.000+01:00

Even though I was only a child when Labour got into power, I have read enough to know that they were given a mandate for promising House of Lords reform, amongst other things. However, in the halfhearted approach that has been endemic throughout this government's tenure, Labour compromised with the Tories who disapproved with the reforms, showing their disdain for needed reform, and kept 92 hereditary peers. Once again, the Tories will disapprove of any move for an elected House of Lords, so with their election victory looking eminent it is clear that these proposals won’t even get completed in 12 years, as The Guardian article highlights that the proposals by Jack Straw are unlikely to hit the statue books before the dissolution of parliament.

Even if these proposals came into fruition, it is likely they will be met with the same discontent that their other House of Lords reforms had. For example, the government are not from the onset stating their backing for a 100% instead of an 80% elected House of Lords. I feel, after the expense row and after 12 years of shabby democratic reform, there is no reason to not back a 100% elected upper chamber. Straw feels however, that the use of three parliaments is needed to obtain the 80%-100% elected chamber. Honestly, I feel this is an absurd claim; we could have an elected representation chosen in the upcoming election, or at least the election after this. So I say, utter rubbish. Straw talks about the need to build a consensus in these three parliaments. What? That is a crazy analogy. Has there not been a consensus for the past 12 years (ignore the dinosaur Tories)? Has the expense scandal not only severed to reinforce the need for change?

He talks about needing time to create a complex electoral system. So does that just show that when they promised real reforms of the House of Lords, they had not looked at any of the options they are saying needs 12 years to complete? It did not take 12 years to set up electoral systems for the devolved institutions. Straw seems to have a good idea of reform of the House of Lords anyway, with his desire to make it similar to the USA Senate. They clearly have ideas with foundation now, no way will 12 further years be required.

What also has to be noted in talks around House of Lord reform, is that there is no consideration around increasing the number of women representations in Parliament. At the moment, 19.3% of Parliament are women. How is this right when women are 51% of the population? Surely, as well as talking about making the House of Lords elected, we should also be addressing concerns around the unequal representation of groups in Parliament.

It is disappointing news from Straw. It seems it will be another chance for real change to be missed. The electoral system changes were only talked about too, and now the chance for radical change in that area seems to have gone, and will be squashed under a Tory government. Once again, the Labour government help bread the democratic deficit that is undermining our Parliament.

I think, 'think' is the key word...

2009-08-25T20:39:00.002+01:00

In response to the Brown press conference, William Hague said that he 'thinks' a Tory government would have acted differently regarding commenting about the release of the Lockerbie bomber:

“It is a Scottish decision but I think we would have given our opinion.”

Well I think that you would not have gave your opinion at all. It is clear that Labour and Brown have interests in oil development and the like over in Libya, so if they do disagree with the decision to let Migrahi it is obviously hard for Brown to say anything. Whilst I am not supporting the pursuit of oil over being principled, it is clear that a Tory government would have acted no different. It is easy for the Tories and indeed the Liberal Democrats to come out in favour or against the decision. However, if Brown had condemned it from the start, it would have obviously followed with talks around whether he is threatening the Scottish devolution settlement, something which some have said the SNP secretly wanted. Therefore, Brown was in a catch 22 situation, he is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

However, I believe Brown should have been honest about his views, as after all we are keen to state our views on foreign policy decision around the world. If we want to treat Scotland with independence, then we have to talk about decisions they make, and not shy away from these discussions in belief that it would rock the boat.

Personally, and I know this is something that is controversial, but I can see the reasoning behind compassionate release. With the considerable level of doubt around his imprisonment, there really needs to be calls from around the political debate for the need of an inquiry. However, the fact there is not, unfortunately shows that there may clearly be something to hide. I believe in justice and freedom, and so if there is such considerable level of doubt around his imprisonment, even from the families themselves, then surely, if the USA is so certain about his guilt, there should be an independent inquiry into it to silence the noises. If there had been this, and it had indeed shown him to be guilty then I feel that there would have been no problems around senior politicians such as Brown speaking up and actually saying, you know what, Scotland, keeping him in is the right thing to do. However, the fact there is so much doubt around the imprisonment, must play on Browns mind too.

This is a really difficult situation, but we need to approach it with the values of the democratic society we pride ourselves on. We need to consider the possibility that this was just a stitch up. If an inquiry had been done a long time ago, as many including the families of those killed have asked for, then we would be able to make a stark moral decision now. However, with so much doubt, it does make the decision and views around the release rather muggy. As for the Tories, they are having an easy ride in opposition saying they would do this and that, but thanking their blessings that they are not in Brown's shoes.

Chris Grayling - stop blaming the individual and form some real structural policy...

2009-08-25T12:00:00.002+01:00

There go the Tories again, making out that people such as Karen Matthews are a typical example of our 'broken society' as Chris Grayling compares our society to that of a USA T.V drama, The Wire. A huge generalisation, and highly unhelpful. There are problems with gang crime, drug crime, etc. but there is in every society, and to demonise our society like this is wrong. Furthermore, he is focusing too much on stigmatisation and failing to wholly recognise the reasons and causes for why they undertake this behaviour. He refers to a 'culture of deprivation', which anyone familiar to the term, is used to blame the individuals for their problems, demining them as depraved and unable to conduct proper lives for themselves. Does he consider why they are in the position they are and unable to change their life the way they want to be? No. Does he consider the mounts of research that shows the poor want to change their lives for the better, but structural constraints prevent them from doing so? No.

What he is referring to are the so-called NEETs. This term is a variation to the 'underclass' concept (but it is important to recognise there has always been a term used to explain the bottom group of society, such as Marx's Lumpenproletariat), which formed in sociological discourse when USA sociologists talked about the Ghettos riddled with poverty. The concept became associated with hard right wingers in the 1990s, such as Murray, who argued that the underclass are a class of their own defined by illegitimacy, unemployment and crime. What many competent sociologists argue however, is that actually the underclass is a flawed concept altogether, and that it is just a way that Murray and other theorists demonise everyone who does something they don't agree with. How can the unemployed, lone mothers, criminals, drug uses, drinkers etc, all form the same class? - they will hardly have class identification and alignment. However, despite the obvious flaws to the concept, the term has entered mainstream critiques, especially the Tories rhetoric and polices, through a process that Giddens calls slippage.

The problem with the Tories and those who support the Tories' association with the concept NEET/underclass, is that they are failing to see the underlying structural problems that people who are more disadvantaged than themselves are unable to avoid. Even those who are on the left of the underclass debate actually fall into blaming the individual, as they are still saying that whilst it is the structural reasons for why they act like that, that they are in that position because they act and do those things. This is wrong. The underclass concept is wholly unhelpful, and proposals by Grayling are too. It makes out that Britain is some kind of run down anarchist state, that needs an iron fist to lock the 'life threatening' NEET's away. This is a flawed conception of reality, and just shows how much the Tories are disconnected from real life.

Cameron talks about his problems with smoking and alcohol abuse, well why don't you show a bit of REAL compassion and see that stigmatising a disadvantaged section in society is wrong? Why don't you put some real energy into forming real policies that help address the root causes of problems, such as housing, education, employment? But there again, even when they try to address this, they fail abysmally. Just look at their shoddy attempts of educational reform, which I wrote a blog about, it is wholly disheartening to the sections of society that they are blaspheming.

So, what this comes down to, is that the Tories have once again demonstrated how out of touch they are with reality, and that their agency based approach misses the need for real structural change, to help those who are disadvantaged. What wont help, is constant stigmatisation!

Cut to the chase Brown...

2009-08-25T10:11:00.000+01:00

It is pleasing to know that Brown has finally realised that you cannot escape the recession without making cuts in some areas. However, it will be interesting to see what is on his list for cutting, and whether their status will be one of postponing or abandoning it all together. I am particularly interested after reading this from The Telegraph:

The first signs of the new approach may emerge at next month's TUC conference in Liverpool, when Mr Brown and the Chancellor will call for pay restraint among top earners in the public sector, calling on them to match the belt-tightening in much of the private sector

Belt tightening in the private? So those big bonuses bankers have at mainly state owned banks, which would have crashed without tax support are examples of belt tightening? No! This is yet again, if it is true, is another attack on the public sector, much like the last few weeks with the Tories slaughtering of the NHS, even though the public have failed to see through it as they actually now trust the Tories more than the other parties with the NHS. It makes you wonder what would actually break through the Tories' facade. I wrote a blog recently about how our own position on the NHS has not been communicated as clearly as it should be either, and it is worrying, as if we want to be a serious election threat we need to engage in the key issues.

Trident is apparently on the list of Brown's cuts, but we all know it will only be a delay not eradication. I have argued repeatedly that we as a party need to be radically different to the other parties and say that we will scrap the scheme and NOT replace it by a cheaper alternative, as Clegg states. How is that going to help gain nuclear disarmament, we need to take these bold decisions to capture voters imagination, to show that we stick to principles, not what we think will settle well in the mainstream political world.

So, whilst it is encouraging that the Prime Minister has finally realised that we need cuts, the things they want to cut will be interesting to study. The cuts obviously wont include flagship but wasteful and costly policies such as the ID scheme and big brother databases. This is our chance to clearly outline our cuts, but hopefully as our party we will rethink our decision to drop key policies such as tuition fees to 'ambitions', and reassess our position on areas such as Trident.

Brown needs to consider the context of UK politics more when discussing third world rights for women...

2009-08-24T18:55:00.000+01:00

If this isn't political opportunism, I don't know what is. Gordon Brown acting like he is a true promoter of women's rights? What, when his own female cabinet members say that he promotes a 'ladette culture', uses them as 'female window dressing', and fails to realise the extent of reform that needs to be done to Parliament in order for women to have equal representation.

Whilst this double standard is important to bare in mind, it is important to focus on the crucial points about universal women rights Gordon Brown and Ellen Johnson - Sirleaf highlight in their article, even if Brown fails to properly address these important issues in the UK political system. They are right to state that a fundamental human right, that of respect and self worth, is undermined significantly for women all over the world. Women are often treat like nothing more than objects, as we have gradually seen the sexulisation of women and sex impeding on women's life's more and more.

The article, whilst being applicable for women around the world, has a third world focus. However, the fact Brown has accredited his name to this article, just makes me feel a bit uncomfortable reading it as he calls for "boys and men...to join our cause [promoting women's rights] and therefore change their lives and our world," knowing that he is hardly the promoter of women's rights himself. For example, the article refers to Wangari Maatha, who has helped draw attention to climate change. But it was only yesterday that I read an article damning the British government for failing to have enough women in discussions around the environment and climate change, and actually referred to women as endangered species themselves within the environment debate.

It is important to give recognition to the various schemes outlined in the article that will be implemented to help women around the world, but the context of the argument cannot be forgot. A context of a UK political system, submerged with males, and any female who happens to raise her concerns around the set up is slammed for being a raving feminist. Thus, whilst women in the UK have more rights than those in third world countries, and there are some useful policies being suggested for promoting women's rights around the world, we cannot forget the struggle for women's rights in the UK either, as this battle is far from over.

Bank bail out looked at in gender equality terms...

2009-08-24T10:35:00.000+01:00

In a fiery article, Janet Street-Porter demonstrates further the way in which women are isolated from top institutions and positions. She names and shames banks such as RBS, who should be more concerned with their representation after taking £20bn from the taxpayer, have no females on the board. So why is that? Well there is a complex set of reasons for why this is the case, and every time, such as Harman, raises their concerns and ways to tackle the problems, men (and some women) accuse her of being a radical feminist who needs to get off men's backs, as she isn't 'shagable' anyway.

She rightly pins blame on the government too, who should have included proposals for equal representation when settling agreements as they pumped billions of tax payers money in the system. Porter rightly remarks:

How can women take the majority of the consumer spending decisions in the UK, make up half the workforce and represent the majority of university graduates, but are still, in 2009, not considered to possess that vital gene necessary to sit in boardrooms up and down the land?

I completely agree. Her idea of there being concrete ceiling is a truer reflection of women opportunity than that of a glass ceiling. In seriousness, yesterday I also referred to a concept that I feel is more substantive with explaining why women are prevented from getting to the top. The concept is labyrinth, which refers to how women have various pit falls all the way through their life, and so refers to wider ares of discrimination than just the top ranks of a women's career.

What this boils down to is simple. There needs to be more focus on the ingrained inequality in society that prevents many women from doing things they want and can do. This is the first article i have really read complaining about the settlements between the banks in terms of a gender inequality basis not a financial basis. Why should women taxpayers fund a system full of men? How is that equal representation? Something needs to be done, it is simply unacceptable.

A comparison of women in politics in the USA and UK...

2009-08-23T21:05:00.000+01:00

In response to a blog I wrote about the Harman debate, Kathryn Jones posted an interesting comment referring to a video about women in USA politics, and reasons for their lack of involvement in the political system. This blog will act as a summary of the video, as well as a comparison with the UK political system, as many of the themes that are discussed in the video ring true of the UK political system. For example, the USA political system only has 16% elected women, which is similar to our 126 of the 645 MPs being women.

The video mainly concerns a healthy debate around women's participation in USA politics, between Caroline Heldman, Martha Coakley, Katherine Clark and Kimberly Driscoll. Before the debate, however, there is an interesting discussion around the history of women's involvement in USA politics. It showed that the isolation of women and dominance of men in politics has not stopped women from trying to break through their oppression. For example, Abigail Adams, the wife of John Adams, the second President of USA, said:

"if particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws, in which we have no voice, or representation."

Thus, it is important to reflect on the important legal advancements that have happened, which is truer of the UK than the USA. However, what Adams says is still largely true, in practice.

Turning to the contemporary discussions of women in politics, it is obvious that Feminism is crucial for us to gain grounding in key equality debates, and push for more women to seek high political office. Caroline Heldman, who provided the bulk of research statistics and findings as a PHD student, said that the low level of USA women in politics in comparisons to other countries was because other countries allow more accessible paths to get to top positions. She said that this included the women's husband, for example, dying and allowing the women to take over their position. However, this is something that we do not have in the UK system, and is not something that the USA system should aspire to either. It is patronising, and defeats the object of getting women into office on the grounds of their own merit. The other path that she felt allowed women to get to top positions was for women to work through a political system, a political system that we ourselves have. However, as shown with the low number of MPs in our political system, this would do little to help women get into top positions. The male dominance is systematic through every aspect of these types of systems.

Heldman offered reasons for why women don't stand for office in the USA. Whilst her research concentrated on the USA political system, her findings provide a general oversight for why women around the world do not stand for political life, so can be clearly linked to the unequal gender political system in the UK.

Family obligations was a primal reason, as children are a big reason for why women do not persue a political career, whilst having children for men has little affect on their desire and ability to work. This is exactly the same in the UK. Sarah Palin in the USA is a good example of how the children line can be thrown at women to stop them from entering politics, as she was criticised for leaving small kids at home whilst she sought high political office. Why is it ok for men then? Well because of the systematic injustice towards women and perceived roles for men and women. Many women themselves hold these views, and so this shows how we need Feminism more than ever, to counteract these engrained detrimental views, and seek to promote women's interests so they are more confident to gain political office.

This links to the next reason given for why there is a lack of women in political office. This is confidence. Heldman said that women are less likely to have the confidence in their own ability and skill level to feel as though they are worthy of political office. This links clearly to the UK political system and recent media coverage around Harman and Clinton, which turned the debates about whether women are in politics or not to do with whether you would be able to have sex with them or not. So this takes the debate away from whether they have the skills to whether they look good, and this type of negativity just puts women off going for top jobs. Her research showed how girls and boys when younger, before having the full effects of socialisation, both have similar ambitions. Only when they reach a substantive level of the socialisation process do we see the ambitions of boys and girls change, with the girl’s ambitions and confidence declining, with the males wanting to obtain top political jobs. This simply needs to be challenged.

An interesting concept that the documentary picks on is that of Labyrinth, which Heldman says should be used instead of glass ceiling. After her explanation, I tend to agree with her, despite my earlier blog, which stated agreement with an article saying that the glass ceiling exists. I still agree with the principle of the glass ceiling, however, Labyrinth is a more substantive description of the gender inequalities that women have to face. It refers to various pit falls that women face, at various points in their life, so can be young or old, instead of the glass ceiling only really referring to what happens at the end of women's careers when they are stopped from climbing any further. The concept of Labyrinth can be clearly related to women and politics in an UK and a USA setting, as it refers to how women are more likely to face obstacles to getting into political jobs, especially top ones, throughout their life, from the start of the socialisation process to the end, with various pit falls such as having kids, and looking after elderly relatives as well as the traditional male culture surrounding politics.

This idea also links to the concept of double blind, which refers to the principle of being "damned if you do, damned if you don't". This is the concept that can explain the media bias that occurred towards Hillary Clinton and other influential women who act masculine, as they feel that is the way to break the mould and promote women's interests. However, as soon as they do, they are shot down by critics, for not being feminine enough. Interestingly, it made me think about the way most women in politics have short hair. On the women, for example, there was a series of images of USA political women and they nearly all had short hair, the same can be said for UK political women, such as Harriet Harman and Chloe Smith, for example. Apparently, the documentary claims that the heightened need for masculinity amongst political candidates happened after the 9/11, which is an interesting analogy, and something to bare in mind with the UK political system too.

When discussing why women get into politics, Martha Coakley an Attorney General, stated that women get into politics because of an issue they believe in strongly. Therefore, it leads one to conclude that if we mobilised the wider Feminist goal so more women believed in it, then maybe more women would get involved in politics and fighting for specific issues, instead of wrongly seeing Feminism as a practice for man bashing lesbianism. Therefore, this shows how we need to redefine what makes a successful political candidate, so what makes a successful mayor, for example - which was something Coakley drew on. For example, redefine political positions so they do not feel as though they have to work 90 hours a week etc to be successful in their job. This is something that Coakley feels is up to women to challenge and change, which frankly I agree with. This would help families with childcare responsibility, for example, however, a national childcare scheme in UK and USA would be better.

She rightly makes a good point regarding women being elected, which is that there sex is seen as a way to judge and compare their work with other political figures. In other words, if a woman was elected as a President and she was not well liked, people would most likely say, well look what happened when a woman was elected. This is very much what is said to me when I argue for women's rights, with Thatcher as the example of supposed women's incapability with politics thrown at me. However, if we have shoddy politicians that are males such as Bush or Brown, well have you seen anyone say, "we shouldn't elect a man again", or "it is because he is a man"? The answer is, a plain no.

There was also an interesting discussion around whether women's approach to politics differs to men’s. Heldman said that research showed women to be more liberal regardless of their political position, and that they are more likely to put women's issues at the top of their political agenda. This can be clearly shown with Harriet Harman's recent comments. Even more interestingly, due to this, women are more likely to address problems systemically whereas men are more likely to take the agency line. Maybe this is why the 'blame it on the people' Tories, are arguably the most sexist towards women out of the three political parties.

I will leave you with a quote from influential Eleanor Holmes Norton, which shows how women and men need to tackle collectively the position of women in society, and that women need to realise that institutions such as porn only serve to isolate them from society, not liberate them:

"If you're going to be a respected member of society, I don't know how you can let yourself get degraded."

Because Feminism IS needed to tackle old and new gender inequalities...

2009-08-23T15:28:00.000+01:00

After reports around the Tory who only selects women if they are attractive, there seems to be a heavy media agenda around women today. On the whole, the coverage is pleasing, as there is a great deal of concern expressed for the lack of women in top jobs, such as an article in The Guardian that rightly argues, the glass ceiling exists in law but not in reality. The articles point to how the battle against gender inequality is far from over, as Feminism is needed to tackle the new as well as old types of gender inequality that are/have forming/formed.

One article in particular I wholly recommend you to read, which highlights the overall news direction today in calling for a greater recognition of the need for Feminism to tackle gender inequality is Hermione Hoby's article, in The Guardian. It acts as an invaluable reminder of how far women have to go until they get true gender equality. She highlights issues of gender inequality that have remained since the second wave of Feminism. For example, how is it right that only 126 of the 645 MPs are women? How can senior politicians such as Alan Scard, talk about women in simple 'shagable' terms?

As well as Feminism being needed to tackle the gender inequalities that have lasted for generations, there are new forms of gender inequality increasingly needing to be addressed by Feminism. I believe that the rise of the porn industry, whilst not being new per se, is an inequality that has gained a great deal of momentum in recent years, and is showing signs of getting worse, not better. There has always been a 'Beauty Myth' around how women look, but the increasing sexualisation of women has, in my view, increased the pressure placed on women, not liberalised them, as they are made to believe they have to meet unrealistic expectations set by unrealistic plastic women to 'belong' in society.

The media reaction by both women and men regarding important stories such as Harriet Harman and Hillary Clinton, shows that the battle for gender equality is long from complete. I am in no illusion, as honestly, I believe that gender inequality is so engrained, we have little chance of ever completely reversing the inequalities. However, Feminism still has a rightful place in contemporary society, to drive forward the message of equality for all. You do not have to be a lesbian man basher to be a Feminist, which is often the conception amongst many, especially men. You just have to believe in equal pay, rights and freedom for women and men. To that end, it is truthful to say that many in society can be called 'feminists'.

So what's the view of the Liberal Democrats regarding the NHS?...

2009-08-23T13:24:00.000+01:00

Well we know they are in favour of the NHS, but does enough of the public know our views? With a poll showing that we have lost 4 points, at the expense of the Tories and Labour, and showing the Tories are trusted the most with the NHS, it is interesting to consider the media reporting of the NHS on the public.

What this shows is one of two things. Either, the Liberal Democrats have been trying to get their view across to the media regarding the NHS, and due to the adversarial political system, we have failed to get it across enough. Alternatively, it may actually show that we have been too lax in getting our opinion across, and so have missed our chance to be the best option for the NHS out of three main parties. Or maybe it is a mix of the two. But whatever the reason is, there is something wrong for the Tories to gain from their true position on the NHS being revealed, and the Liberal Democrats to lose.

It is slightly worrying that the public have failed to see through the Tories facade regarding NHS support. They clearly want to turn as much as it into being privately run, as shown in a ComRes poll of Tory MPs. How the public believe the Tories therefore will be the best in safeguarding a national treasure, is beyond me.

What the Liberal Democrats need to concentrate on is providing their position on trending topics such as the NHS to the electorate in a clearer way. However, obviously, the role of the bias media must be considered. But it is bizarre for us to have lost points at the expense of the Tories, following the constant humiliation for the Tories, this month.

Why is everything always about how women look?!...

2009-08-23T00:36:00.000+01:00

If you have read a few blogs of mine before, you will no doubt know that I am a keen promoter of women's rights. A specific blog I want to draw your attention to is one I wrote about the Harman debate. I found it extremely interesting that the media, including our own party with Opik, reflected all attention away from the crux and importance of her argument, to a debate about how if a woman is 'shagable', then she is hireable.

This is exactly the type of attitude that has been reflected in the remarks made by Conservative Alan Scard, who said that he would only select a woman if she is attractive. Given that he is in charge of trying to find a candidate to replace the famous duck pond Viggers, it annoys me greatly, that he holds these backwards attitudes towards women. Not only are his comments around women sexist, they also highlight an important dimension of a woman's life, that a man never truly faces. This dimension is one of pressure. Pressure to look good, do and say certain things. I wrote a blog about these types of pressures women have to deal with, which helps expand my point further. The comment I am specifically referring to by Scard, is:

But then the other women say 'Oh I don't like her, she's too attractive'."

It just demonstrates the way in which the pressures around how women look can create divisions amongst women, and how men can exploit these divisions for their own benefit. If only there was some way to create a greater feeling of female unity to tackle this pressure...

As well as showing how engrained sexism is within politics it also shows how the Tories despite rhetoric, have not changed. They still have the engrained sexist attitudes towards women, and they are only promoting women for top jobs because it looks good. This is where Harman went wrong. What she said was right. There should be more women in top jobs. But what she failed to outline was that this is because there are many talented women MPs who could do the jobs, not that they should just get the job because they are a women. Comments like this just show how even though there has been progress, there is still so long to go until we truly reduce the dominance of men in politics and society at large.

The Lib Dem's lead the way in tackling forgotten illnesses...

2009-08-20T23:23:00.000+01:00

This is the second in a series of blog posts addressing political taboos, which are not often talked about in mainstream political discussions. However, some of the barriers of discussion are breaking down around these taboos, which we will address.

By Jane Watkinson and Darrell Goodliffe

As the blog will show, the two main parties have not helped as much as they should with removing the stigmatisation around mental health issues. However, the Liberal Democrats have been the most open and forefront about mental health, which was partially why we both joined the Liberal Democrats. The media is also to blame for the slow progress that is being made in terms of tackling the isolation that mental health causes for many people in society, and with the bias reporting towards the two main parties, there is little scope for the Liberal Democrat’s voice to be heard. Even when the media does report mental health, it is usually a negative representation, or it focuses on specific well-known mental illnesses such as depression.

Regular visitors to Guido Fawkes’ blog will find him frequently asking ‘Is Gordon Bonkers’? ,which is a sad reflection both on Guido’s mentality and how the media’s negativity can seep into the blogsphere. This kind of chicanery has a rather long and inglorious past in politics so it was refreshing to see a senior figure in Alistair Campbell come out and talk about his own experiences and call for an end to the ban on sectioning prohibiting somebody for standing to be an MP.

Interestingly, despite Campbell’s campaigning to help remove the stigmatisation around mental health, we found that the Labour Party had no specific mental health policy on their website. The only thing we found that partially mentioned mental health was under the NHS policy section, and only really touched on the issue, saying:

By 2011, 3,600 more new psychological therapists will have treated 900,000 more people with depression and anxiety, improving their quality of life and reducing the numbers on sick pay and benefits.

We also searched the Conservative website’s policy section, and again found that there was no specific section for mental health. This is very disappointing, when 1 in 4 suffer from mental illness. A policy that helps highlight the failings of the two parties to tackle mental health issues, is the Disability Discrimination Act (1995). Both parties have had their part to play with its enforcement, but both have failed to make sure it properly helps protect disabled people, specifically the mentally ill. This was reported by Public Interest Research Unit (2005), who looked at the 10 year span of the DDA.

When it comes to our own policies this is very much something we can be proud of as a party. Our website has a comprehensive run-down of policies and Nick Clegg has gained recognition for speaking out on mental health issues. It is good that we are pioneering giving mental health patients guarantees and calling for investment in infrastructure in what we rightly conclude is a neglected area of the NHS. However, we need to carefully consider the ramifications on this in saying we will allow the NHS to ‘pay for treatment’ in the private sector; almost certainly at punitively high rates (unless we are proposing price fixing) which will undermine the goals we have set. This is one political taboo which we can confidently say we are leading the way in addressing however, there is still work to be done before we can make headway in winning the battle to shape government policy on this issue and making it part of the political discourse.

A usual male response to the 'Real Women' campaign...

2009-08-19T19:41:00.000+01:00

As stated in a previous blog post, the 'Real Women' campaign appears to be a breakthrough in terms of the concerns around promoting women's interests. However, disappointingly, after posting it to Facebook, there were comments branding the policy document "sexist". As expected, this was a male's comment, but what was missing from the analysis was the true nature of the document, as they believed it was a magazine, not a policy document that expectedly addresses one issue.

A woman even commented on the link, saying that it looked "patronsing". However, again the comment surrounded the belief that it was a magazine, due to the cover that the policy document comes in. There was a discussion around whether it was part of marketing or not. Whilst I disagreed that marketing was as important as the respondents were saying, after considering the comments, it may actually be important for us to re-assess the marketing if the target audience seems to be seeing the use of the current images and colours as patronising.

However, the male who felt as though the campaign is sexist said that the title should include men in it, instead of just "Real Women". I think this relates to the point above, that they confused the meaning of the campaign, as it is around a chosen policy area, and that we will only achieve equality of the sexes if we tackle the gender inequality that women themselves face. Only then, will women and men's interests reach a near parity. He believed that there needed to be a man on the front cover with a woman too, to allow equality. However, I disagree. Whilst in general it is important to have an equal representation of sexes (his comments are trivial when considering the unequal representation of women in parliament, top FTSE 100 jobs etc), having a man on the front of the cover would detract from the need to address solely women's interests. It makes out that men are needed to make women 'real'. The use of solely women promotes an independent feel to the campaign, one that helps it gain more grounding in political debate.

It is interesting to also see the lack of media coverage around the campaign, given it is the recess too. This most likely is because the media institutions by and large are controlled by middle age, white men, and are going to pay little attention to a campaign that highlights the inequalities that women face in society.

It is disappointing to have received the responses I did from the posting on Facebook, but to be honest, it is just the usual expected male response to a promotion of women's interests.

A week that highlights the "true colours" of the Tories...

2009-08-19T17:44:00.000+01:00

The true colours of the Tories are really beginning to shine, hopefully the public will start to realise that they are not the voice of change that they claim to be. With the news that the Bromley Conservative council dropped plans to make the taxpayer contribute towards private education fees due to the recession meaning that the parents are unable to pay the often £12,000 tuition fees, it further highlights the Tories' out of touch policies, as it is shocking to believe they were even considering it.

Quite rightly, our MP David Laws, stepped up for equality as he branded it as evidence of the Tories' "true colours". In justification of the proposals, Ernest Noad, Bromley’s cabinet minister for children, said that:

At the end of the day, what matters is that each child gets a good education

How is taking away vital money from the state sector that can be used to fund better educational standards of the comprehensive schools and give it to the elitist institutions and well off families to fund their children with the opportunities that no ordinary child could ever have access to, promoting a 'good education'?

What this comes down to is that the Tories are out of touch from the ordinary members of society. This can be easily shown in the stories surrounding the NHS. Dan Hannon's comments have opened up divisions amongst the Tories, with leading shadow cabinet members including Michael Grove (despite his denial) co-wiring books with Hannon about how the NHS needs to be reformed, aka - privatised.

With that, it is important to consider an interesting aside, as it coincides the release of a report into the NHS staff sick rates. The report wants change in the NHS to counteract the high sick rate amongst the workers. It says that the NHS has to take a leaf out of the private sector's book to reduce the rate. However, again, like the Tory comments above around education, it is missing the importance of the public sector, and how much more demanding it is on the people who work in it. The NHS will deal with all sorts of illnesses and conditions that will never enter the private health system, and therefore there is no wonder that the staff have higher stress and illness levels. The public sector is a demanding sector to work in, and as the trade unions have said, it is wrong to stigmatise the public sector workers in an attempt to advance an already increasingly powerful private sector.

Whilst all the allegations around the Tories continue, with MPs appearing out the woodwork stating their real thoughts (such as ludicrous claims to double the MPs salary), David Cameron is busy trying to distract attention from his say everything, do nothing party. In a desperate attempt to hide his double standard nature, and the party's real ambitions for office, he has been busy talking about the news agenda that has dominated the recess, that of Afghanistan. Whilst rightly needing to discuss these types of issues, he is obviously doing this for restorative PR, in a bid to take some of the attention away from his out of touch party to the Labour government.

In whole, the week has been one where the true colours of the Tories have beamed through their facade of being a reformist party that represents the change that is needed in the country.

Internet Piracy – Is File Sharing a Civil Liberty?

2009-08-17T22:15:00.000+01:00

This is the first in a series of blog posts addressing political taboos, which are not often talked about in mainstream political discussions. However, some of the barriers of discussion are breaking down around these taboos, which we will address.

By Jane Watkinson and Darrell Goodliffe

On August 11th, the Pirate Party registered as a UK political party; its creators reported that it was growing at an exceptional rate with “100 new members every hour” and its Facebook supporters outnumbered both the Conservatives and UKIP. No wonder Mark Pack seemingly felt threatened enough to lend weight to the Daily Telegraph’s jibe they are an ‘apolitical’ party.

The political nature of the Pirate Party is demonstrated by their three key policies, which are: reforming copyright and patent law; tackling the ‘big brother’ state imposed by the government and businesses; and to allow for freedom of speech. There is nothing apolitical about that. Pack’s comments may stem from fear of the Pirates reducing our claim to being the protest vote, with the party having a strong under 30 year old following.

In Sweden, the Pirate Party has been leading the charge against the FRA law and the attack on civil liberties by the Swedish government that much like our government with RIPA and ID cards has been busy trashing civil liberties in the name of the ‘war on terror’. Young Swedes regard file sharing as a civil liberty and who can blame them given the cultural importance of music; through fighting against corporate copyright they have been brought into the wider battle and mainstream Swedish parties youth wings have adopted ‘pirate policies’.

The Pirate Bay founders being jailed and fined set a precedent in the sense that if they can be jailed, anyone can – so it gave more impetus for the Pirate Party’s growth. This ties in with a story in the Daily Mail regarding Mandelson’s apparent crackdown on file sharing. With the Pirate Party registering in the UK, this can act as a catalyst for their growth in mainstream politics.

Music is a part of our culture and heritage as much as any exhibit regarded as a national treasure and what is more is a part of a person’s identity. The Pirate Party has an important political message about the infringement of civil liberties and people realising this are drawn into wider debates about other attacks on civil liberties. Its popularity is justified in the context of the wider battle to protect civil liberties and we should not stand aside from it or dismiss it as ‘apolitical’.

Jo Swinson on the money again...

2009-08-17T12:46:00.000+01:00

I have recently been writing quite a lot of blogs about the unrealistic expectations placed on women, and the pressures they have in all areas of life such as in how they look, work and childcare. Therefore, I was pleased to have an e-mail today about a campaign Jo Swinson is heading, called "Real Women".

I have not looked in detail yet, but from what I have seen it looks like a very good policy document indeed. It is exactly what will help the Liberal Democrats stand out to women, a party that does take women's interests seriously. Whilst Harman does, I respect her for that, her leadership ambitions blurs the important points she makes.

There is a comprehensive outline of how the Lib Dems intend to tackle the gender pay gap. Furthermore, the policies outlined to tackle the often-unfair burden of children on women are a particular highlight. Extending paid paternity leave to 19 months, is a vital step in the right direction in terms of tackling the unequal gender division of labour, it is also important in terms of tackling the gender pay gap. The emphasis on better childcare is also welcome, as this is another area that national policy at the moment lets families, especially women, down.

I have blogged about their proposals for advertising before, but the policy document outlines in greater detail the need to promote a natural image of what women look like, instead of bombarding females with plastic false women, who are nowhere near realistic of what should be expected of women. This is an important development for Liberal Democrat policy, and an area I will be keen to keep check of.

I have to say, well done Jo Swinson!

University is not an easy route B...

2009-08-17T10:34:00.000+01:00

It stroke me today, that many people are using the "go to university instead" line, to try and reduce the youth unemployment rates. This comes with the news that a great number of eligible applicants will be turned down from university because there is not enough places. However, I think those arguing this need to think for a minute about what university is there for. It is not just there to help reduce the unemployed statistics. People do not necessary want to go to university, this is another flawed conception many people have. It should not be seen as the ultimate career path for students, that is just elitism and tradition at its best.

For more people to go to university instead of going on benefits, which this article is suggesting, there needs to be changes to the university system. For one, the tuition fees will ultimately mean that the poorer students will be in an even worse financial situation than they were before they went. Therefore, recommending students to go university, will mean that those who are going as a route B instead of going because they want to, will be more likely to feel as though the debt they end up with was not worth it.

There is also the culture and attitude around top universities that needs to be tackled, which I have wrote about before in previous blogs, such as one about the Sutton Trust Report.

Therefore, it is not as easy to suggest that university can be used as an ultimate replacement for jobs. We have to think about what suits different people best, and education after all is not for everyone. There needs to be more concentration on helping create more jobs, and saving those that are collapsing. Curbing the big bonuses of bankers, with things such as a high pay commission, would help provide more money to keep more ordinary workers.

Therefore, it needs to be considered that university should not just be used as an escape route. It is in itself a trap, one of financial hardship. Therefore, it is not just a simple alternative.

If you were a woman and I was man...

2009-08-17T09:22:00.000+01:00

Can you imagine this?

You walk into a newsagent and instead of women porn magazines you see men porn magazines. You open up The Sun and it has a male page 3, not a woman. Think about walking down the road to the sound of women car horns beeping men as they walk by. You turn on the T.V and see near naked men everywhere instead of women. There are adverts about getting men's penis enlarged on terrestrial T.V whereas women breast enlargements will be confined to spam e-mails. Instead of women, having to give their marital status (Mrs./Miss/Ms), men have to.

Think about if it was seen as wrong for men to leave the kids at home for work, and those that go to work are paid significantly less than women for doing the same job. Think if instead of Playboy mansion being full of plastic women, it is full of 'pretty boys', with an old woman as the entertained owner, not a man. Imagine instead of lesbians, gay men were the 'in thing' for sexual pleasure, and lesbians kissing was seen as sickening.

What I ask you to imagine is only half of what can help a male to understand more how a woman feels and women to greater realise the exploitation and sexualisation of women in society. How is it right none of this is true? There is no real mainstream pressure for men like there is for women. They do not have to constantly see images of plastic members of their own sex and feel as though they have to make themselves unnatural for someone to care. Look at the way Harman’s comments were turned into a debate of how women look like, which I comment more on in a previous blog.

When it comes to the crucial point, women will remain to be exploited if we do not tackle the sexualisation of women and pressures around what they should look like. Only then will we enable women to feel comfortable in their own skin.

Polytechnics challenge out of touch Tory educational polices...

2009-08-16T12:51:00.000+01:00

So, yesterday I did a blog about the Tories educational reform proposals. They stigmatise the more vocational and practical A-levels and GSCE's at the expense of traditional science and maths, which they believe we all should be amazing at to have a sustainable living. As I said in my blog yesterday, I disagree totally with what they are saying, as there are many students who do pick their studies due to their desire and want to study the subject, not because they see it as an 'easy ride'. It is wrong to say that the less traditional subjects should be valued less with a lower pointing system, it is actually insulting.

Therefore, when reading today about two former polytechnics beating Oxbridge in terms of having higher employment rates for graduates, I could not help but smile. This is for one, progress, as it shows that maybe Oxbridge will not always hold the grip on future life for students. Furthermore, what degrees do Polytechnics offer? Well, they offer the vocational subjects; they want the type of A-levels and GSCE's that the Tories want to scrap. So the Tories want to reduce the ability of students to pick these types of subjects and go into this career path, despite the fact we have over 2 million unemployed and there is statistical evidence that these types of studies get students into better employment levels than the traditional Oxbridge students?

This further shows the Tories to be out of touch with changes in society. If they want to lower the point level for these types of subjects, it will only make things worse. It will stigmatise students for taking the subjects, it will also mean that those who want to do it will be put off, especially those with ability as they will be concerned about it affecting future careers. What this shows is that vocational courses are very much in, and that they do lead to good employable futures. Maybe the Tories should remove their heads' from underneath the sand and realise that good education is not necessary attributed to privilege and tradition.

So the Tories want us all to become scientists...

2009-08-15T23:32:00.000+01:00

It is wrong for the Tories to say we need to tell students that doing Maths and Science is what is best for them, instead of them doing what they want to do. In proposals outlined by the Conservatives, the subjects that they decide to be more established and better for society will be the ones that get the students into better universities by offering them more points. Elite universities such as Oxbridge already hate pupils taking subjects like Media Studies, this just further singles subjects that are more academically established and stigmatises students who are more practical.

We aren't all born with the desire to understand calculus or the galaxy, we all have different career paths. Is it so hard to believe that there are people out there who actually want to do Media? Media was one of the A-levels I took at College, and if you put the proper work into it, like every other A-level, it is not an easy ride. There is theory to it, it isn't just practical, and even the practical can not be done by just anyone. People enjoy different things in life, these types of polices just further show the Tories establishment and traditional attitudes that single out the more creative and innovative people in society.

Why is it for the Tories or Oxbridge to decide that Media is not a 'proper' A-level? Have they actually sat down and done it? Why don't they stop talking from their privileged backgrounds and realise that some people actually really enjoy Media, it is a way of expressing themselves, and they wouldn't trade it for a 'better' education, if it means not being true to themselves. This type of snobbishness and elitism annoys me greatly.

So Tories, stop stigmatising students who don't fit your ideal of a 'perfect' student, and start to realise that not everyone wants do be a theoretical wizard, as, where would we be without the media anyway?

A cynical view of the Dan Hannan situation...

2009-08-15T10:49:00.000+01:00

You have an astounding number of views of your YouTube jibe at Brown, people start talking about you as a future leader, of corse that would play on your mind when deciding whether to go to the USA and attack our NHS as a colossal waste of money. With the news that Dan Hannon has gone to the USA saying that our NHS should not be copied over there, it is important to take a rather cynical view to his attitude in terms of their hidden meaning. There is no way that anything that he has said about the NHS has been good for the Conservatives, he full well knows this. Therefore, this leads to one concluding that actually this may be a way of destabilising Cameron to get the leadership.

He knows how damaging it is for Cameron, it could mean a potential election loss, or at least not the landslide majority that many of the Tories are hoping for. If Cameron fails to deliver he may then face a leadership challenge, hey presto, chance for Hannon. He would strike a strong cord with the traditional Tories, as if we are honest, whilst I do not believe Cameron is against the NHS, a lot of the Tories are against the NHS and would love to privatise it.

I recognise that this is a quite cynical view; however, it is also one that could be quite plausible. This is because there is no way that a man in his position would think that going to the USA and saying that our NHS is rubbish is good for the Tories, if he did, he would be a very deluded man. Instead, I believe that it needs to be looked at from a leadership challenge position, as leader is obviously, what he aspires to be.

'New Recession' on the cards?...

2009-08-14T20:50:00.000+01:00

I wrote a blog post a few weeks back about how I felt the comments around the possibility of a 'New Recession' was too pessimistic and did little to help recovery. However, with recent developments with the FSA's poor guidelines of regulation, it makes you wonder whether actually a 'New Recession' may happen. Furthermore, there are concerns around how countries such as France and Germany are actually leading us out of the recession, instead of Brown and Labour 'saving the world'...

Even with signs of improvement in the economy today with repossessions down, there are still warnings about the high level of unemployment, which passed the 2 million mark, the first time since 1997, which could see repossessions sore again. These kinds of analyses show that despite improvements, there are serious areas for concern and the complacency that is creeping back into the banking sector needs to be addressed so that we do not see 'business as usual' and the 'W' shape recession.

Mandelson and other senior cabinet ministers have shown how there is serious discontent with the way in which the FSA have responded. This has helped provide Labour with an overall good week, with the NHS and 'rations' debate. However, these concerns around the bonus culture come on a day that it has been reported RBS paid 7 million to hire a supposedly renowned banker. Totally inappropriate and disrespectful to the 70% tax shareholders.

This feud between the FSA and the government may help Mervyn King with his obvious links with the Tories; push forward their agenda for the destruction of the tripartite system, and for it to be replaced with a regulatory system where the bank has the majority of the power. An interesting article in the BBC, I believe, shows how King is subtly supportive of the Tories. He casts clear doubts on the chancellor’s predictions for growth etc, but to be honest, that is not hard to do. But to further confirm his increasing closeness to the Tories is the fact he casts doubt on the quantitative easing policy too, which many have actually been saying to have a positive impact on the economy. The BBC reporter believes that the bank are stating the need for a reduction in spending on public services, a position that is close to the Tories.

My analysis of the King/Tory relationship can be further confirmed by the following comments in the article:

In addition, the governor refused to be drawn on whether he regarded the Conservatives' plans to hand over regulatory powers to the bank as a good thing.

His silence says it all.

Overall, what I am arguing is that despite the signs of improvement in the economy, we have to be careful about the relaxed way that the FSA and other important institutions, such as the government (despite their comments of concern today), are approaching the banking system as it is starting to look all too much of a familiar situation. I thought that the unique nature of the recession would once and for all allow the banking system to be properly tackled, instead, it seems as though there is just tinkering around the edges. There really needs to be a proper regulatory system put in place, and a stricter tone with the banking system so that we can prevent a 'New Recession' from taking place...

Political Symbols & Colours - Part 3 The Conservatives

2009-08-14T00:29:00.000+01:00

After searching thoroughly, we were unable to find any evidence that there was a logo before the ‘Freedom Torch’, which Thatcher introduced in 1987. However, searching through past election posters, we found that there was a consistent use of ‘The Conservatives’, in yellow and blue – with the national flag embedded in the poster too. The designer of the 1987 Torch based their ideas on the USA Statue of Liberty, as it was intended to represent British liberty, pride and unity. Interestingly, a quote from Disreali helps explain the meaning behind the Torch:

“…in a progressive country change is constant…[but] in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws and the traditions of a people”

By this, the Torch can be said to be the symbol for change, however, it is conservative continuous change. The Torch burning represents the continuity, but the way in which the flame would transform in the wind represents the gradual change that also takes pace.

Michael Howard, however, was not happy with the Torch in 2004, and decided to revamp its look. This was mainly due to UKIP seemingly taking voters off the Tories, and so Howard decided to change the colours of the Torch to red, white and blue to represent Britain more clearly. Furthermore, Howard made the arm that carries the Torch have a rolled up sleeve to fit into a national campaign to show that he was ‘getting the job done’, so to speak. Nevertheless, the Tories have of late once again been shown to be dissatisfied by the logo…

…if the Torch played the new logo in a game of rock, paper and scissors it would invariably win (presumably many Conservative activists have secret fantasies about the flamey torch raising the tree to the ground which is perhaps allegorical for how they feel about some aspects of Cameron’s leadership). In fairness, it does try and carry on the theme of change through continuity but it is hard not to see it in the light of the critiques at the time dismissed it as ‘scribbling’. Gone is the strong affinity with national colours and the idea that nation is central {and the somewhat arrogant ‘natural party of government’ notion that the nation is nothing without a Conservative government} and in is the somewhat random green daubs which are meant to show a affinity with tree hugging.

Petitions sprung up to keep the Torch which does say something we feel about the fact that maybe activists will not be as compliant once Cameron marches into Number 10 as he would hope they would be. One advantage Blair had is that his party at least is underpinned by the notion that it should stand as and be the fulcrum of radical change so changing it is somewhat culturally easier where as the Conservative Party is totally a different beast.

By Jane Watkinson and Darrell Goodliffe

Mrs Clinton: Well done, well said...

2009-08-13T18:26:00.000+01:00

I am surprised with the media response to the news that Hillary Clinton stood up for herself and women when refusing to be her husband's mouthpiece when asked by a student in Congo about Mr Clinton's views instead of her own. Obviously, we know about how different women's situation is over there, however, that was one of the main reasons she went over there, to address the concerns around the rape of women by the people who are supposed to be protecting them.

An example article that I will comment on is one I found in The Guardian by, wait for it, a woman, Lucy Mangan. With her derogatory comments to women saying that Clinton was on her period, making out that she did to have a reason to be angry, there is another fundamental error in her judgement of the event. A more credible source, that of the New York Times, actually says that despite the student's protest, a translator has shown him to have asked Mr Clinton's opinion, not Obama's.
She recommends five things for Mrs Clinton to think about if the situation arose again, each point is flawed and misses the point. Her pointers are offensive, and fail to also take into account the dealings Mrs Clinton has had to put up with regarding her husband, famously his infidelity, which no woman should have to go through. Therefore, it is understandable she reacted the way she is, she has worked her way to one of the top positions in America and has shown herself to be strong and put up with a cheating fool and carry on with her career. So for that I say well done, and I say well said.

Interestingly, The Telegraph who are against Mr Clinton, even critise Mrs Clinton's response, saying that she 'barked' at the student.

The comment says:

"Mrs Clinton was right to feel aggrieved; after all, would a man ever be asked such a question?"

It is hard at first to work out whether this is support or criticism for Mrs Clinton, but when the article moves on to say "You can't help thinking that her husband would have handled it so much better…" it further confirms the sexist response of the media, and also shows politically an important point, as The Telegraph would praise a man's politics they do not agree with over a woman.

Another point is that we have gone into Afghanistan preaching our liberal views and how we have equality of treatment for both sexes, so when a man talks down and past Clinton, how do we react? We react with the same disrespect that many of the men in Afghanistan have for the women, the thing that we are supposedly changing. Totally wrong...

The Sutton Trust Report is wrong: Universities are still at fault...

2009-08-13T11:12:00.000+01:00

I have been intrigued by the number of articles in the past few days drawing on the Sutton Trust findings, saying that it is the state educational sector's fault for the low number of working class students at top universities, and that the universities have nothing to do with this. Of course, I recognise that teachers at less established state schools will be less keen to recommend Oxbridge to their students, but this is fundamentally linked to the universities aura and attitude, so to say they have nothing to do with the class inequalities is wholly inaccurate.

An example of this type of article is one I found in The Independent by Dominic Lawson. The fact is that those who go to state schools, especially schools that are less acclaimed, even if the students have the grades are less likely to want to go to universities such as Oxbridge because of the elite culture that surrounds it. In sociology it is something that is called 'field', which Pierre Bourdieu conceptualised. Your class position (those in state schools are more likely to be working class) predisposes you to whether or not you fit in a particular field, which is a social situation such as university. Thus, the working class students are less likely to fit into the Oxbridge fields, and therefore, this is something that the universities themselves have to address, instead of passing the buck onto the state sector with articles such as Lawson's want.

Whether or not a student fits into a university’s field, relates to two other important Bourdieu concepts, which are cultural capital (knowledge etc.) and habitus (walking/talking/standing etc). In totality, your class background influences these, and those from a middle class background are more likely to have a cultural capital and habitus that fits into the field of elite universities.

There are other important factors to consider too, which all relates to why it is not just the state sector's fault for not encouraging their students to go to high education elite universities. These factors include travelling, as it is a proven fact that the working classes are more likely to go to local universities because of cost etc.

There is also the issue of social capital, which is another of Bourdieu’s concepts. This refers to how middle class families are more likely to have useful resources and networks that can help them get into the top universities. Thus, for example, they are more likely to have friends who went to Oxbridge that they can capitalise on in order to get their children into the best 'field' (university - colleges in terms Oxbridge) for them. Working class students are less likely to have this help.

He denies the claim that the elite universities have taken "an ever-lower proportion of candidates from the bottom end of the social scale". However, even if his denial is true, which I would actually claim to be false, it has to be said that the raison d'etre, is to make the universities look good in a society that is becoming more focussed on equality (even if it is not delivering it) by the day.

Lawson believes that the fact the Sutton Trust showed that "13 most academically selective universities took 39 per cent of their intake from independent schools 10 years ago, but now that figure has dropped to 33 per cent" and that "their intake from what the Sutton Trust described as "lower social classes" increased from 13 per cent to 16 per cent over the same period" is a sign that social mobility is increasing in terms of education. However, I asked myself when reading these figures, is this supposed to be a big change? To me, the answer is no.

As stated above, he argues that it is the state sector's fault for the still low levels of working class students at university. However, whilst I agree that teachers etc. from the state sector are less likely to recommend university to their students, for the reasons given above (social capital, field etc), I do not agree with his reason for why this is the case. He claims:

...it's very clear that the real social antipathy is not that of Oxbridge colleges towards schoolchildren from the state sector, but that of many teachers in the state sector towards Oxford and Cambridge. Perhaps some of them had tried and failed to get in themselves, and their disappointment or chippiness over this leads them to discourage their own pupils from making a similar attempt. Or perhaps they are simply unambitious on their pupils' behalf; either way, it is pathetic

As stated before, I feel that the teachers may not suggest Oxbridge because they know enough about the culture of the universities to know it would conflict with their students. Furthermore, he needs to recognise that the students themselves may look into Oxbridge and be put off for reasons stated above. The article is just another example of how the Right try and put down teachers because of their trade unionist links, to take attention away from the real social injustice within the system.

A similar article in the FT also claims that "the report’s findings undermine regular attacks on leading universities for not admitting enough students from state schools." I do not think it undermines attacks on universities, because it fails to take into account the actual culture of the attitude, and the ways in which class backgrounds can put off or encourage students to apply. It is so simplistic to boil it down to blaming the state sector. Instead, this seems another way to pass the buck and not get down to tackling the fundamental problems within the unequal education system.

Political Symbols & Colours - Part 2 The Labour Party

2009-08-11T23:47:00.000+01:00

By far and away the most commonly associated symbol with the Labour Party is the good ol’ Red Flag which literally was used to represent the ‘blood of angry workers’. Although its use was popularised by events in France and its use there by insurrectionary movements especially in the rebellions of 1848 but also by the Jacobins it has documented usage several times before that on these shores. British sailors mutinied near the mouth of the River Thames in 1797 and hoisted a red flag on several ships. Two red flags were flown by marchers during the Merthyr riots of 1831 in South Wales which were soaked in calf's blood.

As the Second (social democrat) and Third (communist) Internationals went their separate ways both laid claim to the Red Flag although it seems that Labour was inventive with using other colours including early combinations with gold and yellow (a combination that was much later to reappear in ‘Blajr’s Oblong’) and appeals to Catholic communities using green. Although modernisation has seen attempts to marginalise the Red Flag as an emblem and red in general as a colour it is perhaps living proof that no party can totally escape its past that the ditty that accompanies the flag follows Labour around with 2006 seeing the somewhat unusual (for an insurrectionary song) sound of the Red Flag resonating in Parliament to mark the centenary of Labour’s foundation.

The start of the modernisation process really began in 1986, when Neil Kinnock’s Labour changed their logo from the red flag to the red rose. However, many associate the process with the Blair era because of the momentum Blair brought for change (which many forget needs to be rightly accredited to Smith too). The Blair era however was distinct to that before, in how it affiliated more with the colour purple (his infamous purple ties). Many see this as a sign of arrogance, probably not surprising given it was the colour of Roman emperors. Thus, whilst there are still signs of the old labour ties to the red flag, Blair tried his utmost to downplay this and try and demonstrate the ‘new’ aspects that he wanted the Labour party to advocate.

Interestingly, in little time after Blair had left office, Brown and his allies removed the “New Labour, New Britain” slogan, and changed the rose to purple. Even though the New Labour government have always dabbled with the colour purple, this was seen by many as Brown seeking to establish his leadership as he formally attached the colour purple to a significant symbol of the party. But as has often happened under Brown’s tenure, he went back on his plans as we now have seen the a return to a familiar combination of white and red. Maybe he backed down due to pressures over the Brownite/Blairte struggles, hiring strong allies of Blair such as Mandelson, or maybe it was just another one of those Brown experiments, but it was probably a combination with Brown saying “purple is the colour of passion”.

By Jane Watkinson and Darrell Goodliffe

Big bonuses and profits, a sign of a government too weak to govern...

2009-08-11T13:18:00.000+01:00

With a PoliticsHome poll showing that 48% of those polled believe that the return of profits for banks is a bad thing whilst 86% of those polled feel that the return of big bankers bonuses is a negative development, it is hardly promising to see the FSA chief say that it is not in the FSA's remit to control individual bankers bonuses. This is said, despite the fact they are the regulators. Hector Sants says that instead it is up to "politicians and society as a whole" to control individual bonuses. Remarks such as this just further demonstrates the lack of accountability the banking and regulatory system has, with key figures passing the buck, unable to accept responsibility.

This links to my recent blog post around the systemic ways banking regulation works, and what each of the three main parties advocate to improve it. There needs to be more clear accountability in the regulatory system, but the Tories are wrong to say that the regulatory duty should be cast all towards the Bank of England. Instead, we need to make sure that the FSA chief knows more about his and the institutions role as a regulator, and so that the tripartite system, amongst other things, is changed to make the banking system work better. The concerns by the public around the size of bonuses again links to one of my recent blogs, as it shows further evidence for my criticism of an article in The Independent, which claimed that the size of bonuses does not matter. This is because, the increasing size of bonuses just plays on the fears of the public, that it really is just 'business as usual'.

The political poll also shows that overall, despite a few Tory free marketers, all three main political parties believe that the government have been too weak in their response to the banks. That is worrying for Labour, as a big majority of Labour supporters are included within this view. I have to agree with the majority of those polled, as the government should have been stronger in terms of making sure the excessive risk culture did not return so that we did not see the signs of 'business as usual', which we are seeing. They should have temporary nationalised the banks and controlled lending that way, then once lending was restored to a steady and sustainable level, privatised them. Nevertheless, what is done is done, and there needs to be more forceful legislation to control the way banking and bonuses are done, so that we see more faith in the economic system and that the signs of 'business as usual' recedes.

Political symbols and colours - Part 1 The Liberal Democrats

2009-08-10T12:41:00.000+01:00

We started our investigation by looking at the different colours political parties use and have used in the past. Frankly, the differing colour schemes are quite baffling as illustrated by this exchange about party colours and rosettes. It seems totally weird now to think that the Conservatives once used red and that the old Liberal Party favoured blue. The main determinant of early political colours appears to be closeness to local landed interests or a desire to affiliate with local communities (hence Labour’s early dalliance with Catholic green).

The actions of other political parties seems to weigh heavy too; with a suggestion that the Conservatives settled on blue to hoover-up Liberal votes and build a broad social coalition (presumably against Labour ‘reds’). Gold and yellow could have found favour due to associations with trade and banking in Liberal circles although Labour used yellow a lot in their early years (and indeed still do). Standardisation seems to have been the product of the advent of colour television and the need for a nationally recognisable colour. Colour can still play a highly symbolic role with both Labour and Conservatives ‘adding-In’ new colours (purple and green) as a ‘symbol of modernisation’.

Despite the changes in colour over the years, the Liberal Party, SDP and the Lib Dems have had a close affinity to the colour gold. This can be shown in the logo choice of the Liberal Democrats, with the gold “Flying Bird of Liberty (Libby)”. As mentioned above, we found that gold was chosen to signify the importance of wealth and money. Thus, we concluded that the gold bird ‘Libby’ shows how as a party we have moved away from the old Liberal Party’s emphasis on free trade and markers, to one of more equality and freedom in terms of how wealth and income is distributed. Furthermore, in keeping the gold colour the Lib Dems maintain important associations with classical Liberals, such as Gladstone.

Interestingly, we found that the acronym ‘Libby’ stands for “Life Is Better Because Of You”. We believe that this could be used successfully in a Liberal Democrat campaign, taking on two main themes. It could be used to address the individual specifically, stating that the party is better with that individual. Alternatively, the slogan could be used by the party, to say that life is better with a Liberal Democrat government. Thus, we are arguably missing out on the chance to capitalise on the name of our symbolic bird, highlighted by discussions around whether or not we should replace it. Instead, as a party, whichever way we choose to draw attention to the acronym, Libby the bird should play a more central role in our campaigning and message.

By Darrell Goodliffe & Jane Watkinson

Unsurprisingly, Harman's comments been turned into a debate around how women look...

2009-08-08T13:39:00.000+01:00

Finally, I have found an article that has been wrote in support of Harriet Harman, in The Guardian by Tanya Gold. I am not suggesting this is the only article that has been written in Harman's defence, but it is amongst the few that have been. I have written extensively on this issue in recent blog posts, so I apologise for repeats. However, I believe that the way in which the majority of columnists and political figures have responded(or not responded) to Harman is crucial to assess, as it helps highlight the ways in which males dominate the political culture.

As Gold highlights in the article, many of the responses to Harman have been sexist, such as Lembit Opik's response yesterday, and are simply unacceptable. It is important to liken Opik's comments to the Spectator, which is a true Tory newspaper, as it shows how close he is to the traditional attitudes that are engrained within the Conservatives. Opik is supposed to be fighting politics in a party that stands up for equality for all, not one that bashes women down when they highlight a fundamental point. Some have suggested that Opik has not actually wrote the column himself, but whether or not he has, his name is still associated with the comments; and with the core and often blurred concept of accountability, it is Opik who has to be responsible for what is said.

The fundamental point, regardless of whether you agree with Harman's vision for positive discrimination, is that there needs to be more women in politics and doing the top jobs. Simply, there are many women who could quite easily take up top jobs in cabinet, but are overlooked. When Opik's comments are similar to that of Rod Liddle of the Spectator (which Gold rightly states as further evidence for the sexist ways men have responded to Harman), it is worrying for the Lib Dems. Liddle, says for example:

So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober.

How is this any better than Harman saying that we cannot trust men?

It appears to me that many people are missing the important point, and Harman, whilst getting it, is making it harder for people to see due to her man bashing. Rightly, it is to be said that many men cannot be trusted, but equally, a lot of women cannot be either - it is the nature of life. What it comes down to is not trust, it is about equality and representation.

I think Liddle is running before he can walk if he thinks that a woman who is respectable would want to do what he claims to him, when she is married with kids and has such a strong feminist equality vision. He claims he would have more self worth than to have sex with Harman but, I think even thinking these thoughts when Harman is pointing to key issues in politics show actually how he and others who support the article he has wrote actually have little self worth.

Again, the article highlights the way in which men have predominantly responded to Harman's comments, which is with their pants. He refers to how the women in cabinet are simply not good looking enough for 'female window dressing'. This further shows how the men are missing the point, as Opik did yesterday, as it is not about what women look like, it is about their talent. Why do all these men keep commenting on the way women look, and how someone like Jordan would be the epitome of positive discrimination? Maybe because this is just another part of the male dominated culture that politics fosters...

Lembit misses the point...

2009-08-07T19:09:00.000+01:00

Lembit Opik has wrote another one of his famous articles in the Daily Sport that is extremely derogatory towards woman, and not a newspaper that a politician should be writing in. Anyway, on the specifics of the article, which consists of patronising words to describe women to fit the theme of the newspaper, such as 'missus' 'lasses' and 'babe', he attempts to slight Harman's proposals for fairer representation of women in Parliament by saying that with her proposals, Jordon would be the ideal candidate for Home Secretary.

His article has a fundamental contradiction at the beginning too, when he actually says that men cannot be trusted. However, the thing that got me the most was with how he believed that Harriet Harman's proposals were about the "womanliest women available" getting the top jobs, which he believes Jordan epitomises. However, this is his own sexual conception, as Harman was arguing in terms of women's talent, not in terms of what women look like. Therefore, in other words, Opik believes that someone who sticks plastic in her boobs and runs as a contender in the 2001 General Election promising women free breast implants and more nudist beaches is someone who would constitute as being the top woman for a top job. A flawed conception of providing women more rights, if I do say so myself.

Criticising Harman for outlining credible ways of promoting women, Lembik Opic reinforces the male dominated culture of politics. He does rightly (except the derogatory use of the word 'lasses')say that

"Lots of lasses in Parliament are qualified to do these jobs and their talent should be recognised"

But the fundamental issue is that he has missed the whole point. Harman stated this quite clearly, that there are a lot of talented women in Parliament, but they are often overlooked. Opic basically says that if women had big boobs and were super models they would stand a better chance in politics. He has the wrong conception of talent, and what being a woman is.

Quite rightly the opposition have picked up on the story, with Henry Macrory, the Head of Press at the Conservative Party saying on Twitter:

"Massive snub to Huhne...Lembit Opik calls on Jordan to be made Home Secretary in his Daily Sport column today!"

And this all comes in the same week that the Lib Dem's made some progress in terms of tackling airbrushed images of women, which I commented on in a previous blog.

It makes you think there might be some hint of truth in his claims for Jordon to be the new Home Secretary, so watch out Jordan, be aware Katie Green...

When the cats away, the mice will play...

2009-08-07T15:40:00.000+01:00

With Brown away on holiday, with the dab of politically motivated voluntary work, the battle for the next Labour leader has heated up. The two political mice that have been talked about the most and are seen as using their time as replacement PM cat, are Harriet Harman and Peter Mandelson.

However, interestingly, Steve Richards in The Independent states quite forcefully that neither of the two leading cabinet figures will actually even stand to be the next leader. He argues that the fact Harman has actually said that it is not in her ambitions to be the next leader, and that her close allies back this up, supports this claim. However, The Sunn interestingly point to how Harman has been involved in five high profile interviews in her time as replacement PM. Furthermore, moving into an office in Number 10, is hardly going to kill the rumours of her wishes to be the next prime minister.

In a temporal aside, I feel it is important to reiterate something that I have said in previous blog posts about Harman's recent comments, however. Whilst the abrupt way in which she has made the case for women's rights, such as saying that if Lehman Brothers had been Lehman Sisters it would have been ok, actually blurs the important point that she is highlighting. The Sun show how a group of female Labour MPs have likened Harman to the Taliban, accusing her to have fundamentalist views.Actually, that is quite contradictory to what Harman is fundamentally pointing out. Harman is simply arguing for greater representation of women in government to allow them to take equal part in decision making. It is actually fundamentalist to argue the other way, that there should not be a more equal representation of women at the top of government, and indeed at every level of politics.

As stated before in previous posts, I do not favour positive discrimination per se, but in politics the promotion of women into top posts is different. All MPs have been elected the same way, and frankly if they are not able to hold down top positions in government they should not be an MP. Harman has always been a promoter of women's rights, to say she has only started to become one to gain the leadership is wrong, but to say she has become more vocal about these issues would in my opinion, be true.

Whilst I do not agree with Richards in that the two mice above will not stand for the leadership, it does highlight the need to consider other, lets say, quieter possible leadership challengers. For example, David Milliband has got in on the act today, with his discussion around the possibility of having US-style primaries. Harman has a pro women's equality vision, Mandelson has a pro business style vision, Milliband has a pro world vision. Whilst being more subdued,the story regarding Milliband shows that he is another mouse that is not prepared to stay out of the action.

The news whilst Brown has been holidaying, shows that simply, when the cats away the mice will play...

Because the size of bonuses does matter...

2009-08-05T10:17:00.000+01:00

There was an article in the Independent today, which I disagree with in terms of its claims that we are overacting in regards to bankers bonuses, but then agree with in terms of some of the ideas it puts forward to tackle the instability of the banking system. The article appears to hold contradictions, as the proposals it offers to tackle the banking problems conflict with the first claim of the article, which is:

First, the problem with these bonuses is not, as is often stated, their obscene size, but their structure, and the encouragement of risk-taking that it usually involves...In fact it doesn't matter, in this context, if someone in a financial institution receives a bonus of £100 or £10m a year.

Actually, the size is part of the structural problem with the bonuses. The bigger the bonus the more risk taking they encourage, so the size of bonuses is something that needs to be tackled. It fundamentally matters what the size of a bonus is, especially in the economic crisis, as shown by the controversy around Fred Goodwin. So on both counts, I disagree...

If we look at the proposal the article offers to stop excessive bonuses, then the conflicting views of the author is highlighted. The author says that we should see more taxes on the banks, not the bankers, the more risky their culture is. However, this is where the conflict with the first point of how the size of bonuses occurs. Actually, in taxing the most risky banks, we would see the bonuses for bankers reduced in size, as they would have less ability to give the excessive sums they are. Furthermore, it appears as though there is a direct correlation between big bonuses and failing banks, as it is the greediness and moral incapability that got them into the mess. Therefore, to discount the size of bonuses as meaningless figures seems a tad bizarre.

The article does importantly suggest an end to the retail/investment joint banking system that we have at the moment, which is something that Vince Cable has advocated. However, overall the article seems a bit out of touch with the concerns around how greedy bankers have been. For example, to argue that:

Bankers are no more "greedy" than the rest of us, apart from Buddhist monks. If you or I were offered a £25m bonus, we would not hand it back. Nor would we say no to the taxpayer paying for a second home, as our MPs did. It is hypocritical to appeal to bankers' moral sense when it is no different to anyone else's.

Speak for yourself. There is no way that I would have accepted the massive pay off Fred Goodwin received after he collapsed the RBS. There is no way that I would flip my main and second home for personal gain at the expense of the taxpayer, whilst building a moat and calling the public jealous of my 'Balmoral house'. Absolutely ridiculous claims, and this type of attitude is helping aid the 'back to business' attitude that we clearly do not need. In sum, the structure of the banking system and bonuses do need to be changed, but this fundamentally involves the size of the bonuses too.

Lib Dems lead way in tackling unrealistic expectations placed on women...

2009-08-04T19:46:00.000+01:00

The Liberal Democrats have hit on a topic that I have been commenting on extensively in recent blog posts. In proposals outlined yesterday, they address clearly some of the reasons that lead to girls and women having unrealistic expectations around their apperance. In calling for airbrushing in children advertisements to be banned and flagged up in adult advertisements, they have taken an important step in tackling the corrupt culture that promotes the flawed conception of what expectations women should meet.

However, in response, the Advertising Standards Authority said that there are few complaints about airbrushing:

"Consumers know there has been alteration in some of the images, maybe that is why consumer complaints are quite low."

Actually, looked at another way, many may feel that they have not been airbrushed and that instead this is the image that women should try and obtain. This may be the real reason behind the low level of complaints. This is why the Liberal Democrat proposals are fundamentally important in terms of addressing the problems around self perception of women and the idealised conception of what women should look like, constructed by society.

Well done.

Because someone needs to stand up for Haman...

2009-08-03T12:34:00.000+01:00

The newspapers are full of criticism for Harriet Harman today. I agree her comments about how men cannot be trusted etc etc are harsh and unhelpful; however, her proposals highlight the systematic male dominance in politics.

I have been surprised a bit by the ignorance of some women writing in the newspapers today. For example, a Telegraph article says:

"If the women are good, I’m with them; if they’re not, I’m not"

Yes, I am against appointing women just for the sake of them being women. However, many talented women in parliament are overlooked for cabinet jobs and other important jobs. Therefore, does this mean that only men, who have been elected the same way women have, are more talented? Alternatively, is it just further evidence of the men being more able to get to top positions in politics?

This relates to issues around women being set back in politics by commitments to childcare etc as well. It is therefore not a simple question of whether they are good or not, as if they have got into parliament I sincerely hope they are good enough to hold a top post. There is also a fundamental issue of helping more women get into politics at a local level, as the male dominance that Harman highlighted and seems to have been shot down about, needs to be addressed to provide women with more confidence in a system that regularly fails them.

I think that Harman's words could have been better chosen, but to beat her down for simply advocating a fairer and representative leadership and government is wrong. We need to see more women in top positions as they are good enough, otherwise they would not likely be elected. There is a long-standing tradition in politics that has seen women isolated from the main decisions; I mean it is only relatively recently that women were able to vote. There have been important changes that have taken place recently, but Harman's words, if not her policy ideas, serve as a reminder of the problems that are still occurring due to the male dominance in politics.

Hidden agenda?

2009-08-03T10:56:00.000+01:00

In an interview with Eric Pickles today, he talks about how Brown stepping down would make a Tory victory harder. You have to question the real reason for the Tories continually saying that they would fare worse if Brown stepped down. There are several possible reasons from what I can see.

1)They might genuinely believe that Brown standing down and someone like Johnson stepping in may make it harder for them to win the election.

2)However, if this was the case, then why would you keep talking about your weaknesses? Especially when Johnson or whoever would be the new leader would again have failed to be democratically elected as the Prime Minister by the public...

3) This leads me onto the most credible option. They keep talking about it, as they want it to happen. If Johnson was to become the Prime Minister, then there would be no way that he could continue until next year being the Prime Minister without going to the electorate. Hey presto! We would have that election that the Tories want so bad. If as Brown says, the economic policies that he has brought in start to work, the Tories are the last people to want Brown hanging on to power next year with possible signs of recovery.

However, there is the problem with the third scenario in that Brown provides the Tories with more scope for criticism. Brown has had problem after problem whilst being in office and his personality is attacked from all sides of the debate. But if he was to resign then they could not only lead on the weaknesses of Brown being confirmed by his resignation but also that the new leader is again not democratically elected, highlighting how the failures of Brown was also under an undemocratic leadership.

This is just my own take on the constant worries the Tories project in the newspapers over Brown possibly resigning. In sum, if you did not want something to happen, why would you keep talking about it?...

Hats off to Harman...

2009-08-02T18:35:00.000+01:00

Harriet Harman has been successful in promoting women's equality during her tenure of deputy leadership. In recent developments, she calls for a woman to occupy either the deputy leadership or the leadership. I support her vision, as there should be a 50/50 split for men and women at the top of politics, however, in a man dominated political culture, it could easily just be included under another one of Clegg's 'aspirations'.

The idea is one that should not be ignored, however. Equally, it should be applied to the leader/chancellor position, as this is arguably another axis that needs to be more proportionate. Look at the three main party combinations at the moment: Labour - Brown/Darling, Conservatives - Osborne/Cameron, and Liberal Democrats - Clegg/Cable. This further highlights how there is still fundamental progress required to rebalance the political figuration of men and women in positions of power.

However, the current system conflicts with Harman's vision, as shown by how she believes there will never be a man only Labour leadership again. You only have to look at the power and sphere of influence Mandelson has to see that he is in all but name the deputy leader...

Whilst I am not in favour of positive discrimination overload, I believe that it is wrong for Ann Widdecombe to totally displace Harman’s 50/50 idea. There is a lot of merit to the idea; there are many talented women in parliament who are overlooked for top jobs (for example, chancellor). This however links to the systemic attitude of many top male politicians; even Brown has been shown by the Wags (Women Against Brown), to run a 'laddete' cabinet and government, which runs contrary to Harman's ambitions of equality for women.

It is not cynical to suggest that what this boils down to from Harman is that she is lining up for a leadership challenge, but it is a shame that as one of the most powerful women in politics at the moment she is not necessary seen as a credible candidate to replace Brown. She has the right ideas about women and equality, but she seems to have too many people within the Labour party and wider public who do not like the way she does politics.

However, I do think praise is due for Harman, as she consistently promotes women’s rights. Her idea of 'Gender 20' sounds promising, coming from a leading politician it personally gives me more faith in a male dominated political system that this week has depressed me somewhat.

If it came down to Mandelson or Harman as aTelegraph article suggested today, it appears as though the equality attitudes of Harman would be much more greatly needed than Mandelson's super pro business mentality, which exemplifies the masculine attitudes that politics is often caught up in.

Hypocritical Pickle

2009-08-02T17:40:00.000+01:00

I have not quite made my mind up about 'open primaries', but I was annoyed to read Eric Pickles' comments in his article regarding the Totens 'open primary', where he said:

"Predictably, an adjoining Liberal Democrat MP, protective of the old system that keeps power in the hands of the chosen few, urged people to mess up the selection; hardly positive politics from a once-progressive party."

How hypocritical are those comments? How can the Liberal Democrats be said to be protective of the old system? We are the only party to truly advocate a fundamental change to the political system, calling for a change to voting, amongst many things. The Tories are the dinosaurs of political change, they would not want the type of reforms we propose as it would take the unequal power base away from them, and make the power truly representative of what the voters want.

There are obvious concerns around the political parties using 'open primaries' to get the supposed 'weaker' candidates in, but as I said, I have yet to properly formalise a view around 'open primaries'. However, it is unbelievably rich for Pickles to preach this and belong to a party that still supports the unequal first past the post system.

The Liberal Democrats are the only progressive party, Pickles' comments just further show the hypocritical nature of the Tories.

Forget about experience or intelligence, if you wear a short skirt you have the job...

2009-08-01T10:52:00.000+01:00

There was a very interesting article by Christina Patterson in The Independent today, which highlights how little has changed regarding the pressure for women to 'look good', to get anywhere in society.

As well as highlighting the unequal pay divisions for women in society, which I have commented on before, she also refers to the problems around the pressure for women to make sure that their appearance is what the men want. Whilst men do not really promote women in the workplace in general, if you are hot, young and wear a short skirt, you are more likely to be hired. I mean, you most likely will be treat with discontent, but at least you will have the fat middle age balding men in the corner perving on your legs...

This relates to what is called the 'beauty myth'. This is Naomi Wolf's conception, which refers to how the idealised view of how women should look like in society, influences all spheres of which women enter, such as work. This is a way in which men can feel as though they are appearing to provide women more choice, but at the same time, they have a sense of control and self gratification from the women's appointment.

This may seem a bit cynical, but if you read my furious Feminist rant blog I did the other day, you will understand further my anger at the way most women are treated in society. I have openly faced discrimination within the Liberal Democrats for being a woman, that is something I never thought I would ever experience being in a party that promotes equality. When you experience things like that it just makes you think more about the wider systemic injustice that women face in society.

Thus, it seems as though little has really changed, whilst everything has on the surface. Women are able to break the glass ceiling now, however, not all of them, and if the way they break it is for them to wear a short skirt, then that is not progress. It comes to a point where the way in which we tackle the problems around this patronising treatment towards women, which the porn industry highlights so well, becomes unclear. As well as providing more child care, better pay, the way that women can often be made to feel, almost as sexual objects, needs to be tackled.

Are the Liberal Democrats missing their chance?

2009-07-31T22:29:00.000+01:00

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...

2009-07-31T20:31:00.000+01:00

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...

2009-07-30T21:08:00.000+01:00

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...

2009-07-30T15:51:00.000+01:00

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...

2009-07-29T21:08:00.000+01:00

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...

2009-07-29T16:00:00.000+01:00

There now seems to be a dominant discourse in British Politics that wants to see the rebalancing of power from central to local control. However, this discourse has a central theme of contradiction running through it, which sees 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 this inconsistency within the discourse.

The Tories have a low level of democratic decision making in terms of their policy ideas, with their polices being largely determined by think tanks and the leadership. Indeed, there have been comments and concerns by Tories themselves of the problem around the Osborne and Cameron relationship, which is seen to exclude important people from key decisions. This is one of the many examples that show that despite the Tory rhetoric of localisation there is a running practice of centralisation. You only have to look at a recent speech by Cameron regarding localisation, democracy and power, where Cameron said we need a "massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power", to see the Tory rhetoric stance on these issues.

Whilst the discourse of localisation has become more prominent now, it has always been around, fuelled with the contradictions that seem to be inherent within it. For example, Thatcher wanted to see people gain more power and control over their life, shown by the council house sales - however, again, once looked at closer, her line of approach is riddled with contradictions. For example, look at the 1988 National Curriculum introduction, or the ability for schools to drop out of local governmental control. There is also the issue around 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, where many of the key issues are centralised. 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 be shown the problems with their localisation approach. The polices that they actually try to demonstrate their localisation dream actually are just little more than tokenism and do little to help solve the problems they are intended to tackle.

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 road full of crime. There is also the ability of local people to choice the punishments they want for 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', and 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...

2009-07-27T12:47:00.000+01:00

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...

2009-07-27T12:25:00.001+01:00

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...

2009-07-27T11:01:00.000+01:00

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...

2009-07-27T10:27:00.000+01:00

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.

Are we going to miss the chance for proper reform?...

2009-07-26T19:03:00.000+01:00

The expenses scandal has quite rightly hung around parliament like a bad smell since the Telegraph first exposed many MPs' horrendous claims. However, there was one good thing that has come out of the scandal, and that is the more renowned recognition of the need for change.

Our political system has an extensive democratic deficit, and before the scandal, the two main parties seemed to be able to resist any fundamental change without any harm being done to them in the opinion polls. However, when you consider the safe seats, as a very good article in the Guardian today showed, there are only about 100,000 people who truly decide who is the governing party with the biased first past the post system.

The article highlights well the opportunity that Brown has to make a real lasting change to parliament. To try to regain some respect after his shabby dealings of reform after the scandal, there should be a referendum on the voting system av+ recommended by the Jenkins report, which Labour conveniently ignored. I know that the Liberal Democrats want STV, but now, I think that as the Make My Vote Count campaign rightly recognises, any change to the system that makes it slightly more proportional is worth voting for.

The fact is that if Cameron is elected he will not even consider changing the voting system, why would he when Thatcher herself admitted that doing this would mean a Tory government would never be elected. Therefore, Brown should show a bit of leadership for a change and call a referendum on the voting system.

However, I do tend to disagree with the article and agree with Clegg on when the referendum should be. I feel that Clegg is right to say that if it was held on the same day as the general election people would confuse the issues and arguably, this could benefit the Tories obvious opposition to the proposed changes to the electoral system.

The Tories are right to point to Brown's opportunism if he does call for it, as this is something they could have changed 10 years ago; however, they will only be arguing this from their own self-interested position.

I feel however, that if something like this is not done then we are dangerously leaning towards losing the momentum that the scandal produced for change. We already saw half hearted reforms rushed through this week, seeing the House of Lords as usual resist reform, where instead we should have seen this ironically even longer holiday than usual reduced to allow Parliament to debate the changes that are desperately needed to reinstate much needed trust into our political system.

Will we see Brown bite the bullet and push for this referendum, or will we see him once again squander the chance for proper reform, reform that the Liberal Democrat's have been calling for well before the expense scandal?

Abolish educational elitist institutions to promote social equality?

2009-07-26T15:36:00.000+01:00

There is a really interesting article in The Independent by Tim Lott, who debates the possibility of abolishing private schools. As he recognises, in reality the middle class/upper class families who send their children to these elitist institutions would not support it, but there is a weight behind his view that it would help reduce social inequality.

It would help level out the playing field (not completely). He rightly points to how Labour are too wrapped up in the representation of disabled, women and ethnic minorities - which is right to promote, but where is the concern with the limited working class background representation? Michael Martin was teased for being from a working class background, as most of the MPs are from middle class backgrounds that usually involves a stint at a private school and Oxbridge.

Yes, many remark on the Tories educational experiences, especially Cameron, Osborne and Johnson. However, it is important to remember that our own leader, Nick Clegg, is privately educated and has a privileged public school/Cambridge background. Maybe this is one of the reasons he has moved his stance on tuition fees to being a mere ‘aspiration’, because like Cameron, he has not experienced any educational hardship himself.

If private schools were to be abolished, this would lead to middle class families who have more resources to be more proactive with their children’s education (research shows that working class parents are not less interested in their children's education, but have less means to do anything about it), would help drive up the standards of comprehensive schools.

I would also say that we need an abolition of grammar schools, as they also form part of what is seen as a favoured educational background, and is a big reason for why kids from middle class backgrounds are so much more likely to get into top professional jobs such as being a judge or an MP.

There needs to be a radical consideration of proposals that could help tackle the marked social inequality that the Milburn report has further highlighted. However, there have been reports after reports commissioned under Labour's tenure that show the same thing - that there has been little change to the social inequality in the education system and beyond in respect to class - and that in fact it has worsened. If we want to make parliament amongst other institutions, more representation, we have to look more closely and radically at the institutions that foster the elitism that the professional occupations desire.

Possible Labour Leadership Contenders...

2009-07-25T16:02:00.000+01:00

With talks around Brown's leadership after the disappointing, but not as bad as it could have been, Norwich North by-election result for Labour, it is interesting to consider some of the potential successors to Brown:

David Milliband

He did not want to be a Heseltine, and be the one with the shotgun. Instead, he may be carefully waiting until after the general election to formalise his leadership campaign. His intentions are clear, but polls suggest that Labour would fair no better under his leadership than Brown's. Maybe, his dishonesty is the reason for this, if he did not go writing articles all the time about how he may want to be the leader, people may feel what he says is more candid than it appears.

Harriet Harman

I think she would be a very unpopular change of leadership, and would do little to help improve Labour’s appearance. Even though she is one of the few possible women contenders, she seems to be on enough programmes as it is, without her having the leadership to aid that. It seems as though she will stand for leadership, but I feel her attempt would be thankfully for Labour, unsuccessful.

James Purnell

A year ago, this may have seemed a bit of an odd choice out of the possible contenders. However, with his recent resignation and open criticism of Brown, to then go on to join a left wing think tank, it is interesting to question his own intentions. It appears as though he wants to try to attempt to redefine the party as Smith/Blair did, but many Labour supporters have commented on this and appear to see through Purnell's interests. How someone who introduced the type of welfare polices he did when Welfare minister, and is a clear Blarite, can redefine the left, is beyond me.

Ed Balls

Brown's blue eyed boy, seems today to be a possible contender for the Leadership, as he is shown to criticise the way Purnell has acted in what he deems a mid life crisis. This is quite interesting development; maybe Ball’s would offer the change that is needed for Labour, maybe not as the Blarite Vs. Brownite infighting continues. Watch this space I think.

Alan Johnson

The dark house of the competition, he seems to have a fair few followers, but whether he would represent the change that Labour need is another thing. Maybe, like Milliband, accepting the Home Secretary position is a bid to allow Brown to take the brunt for the failures of the government, to only attempt to take over after the election. We will have to see.

Peter Mandelson

With possible reforms to the House of Lords, allowing life peers to resign and stand in the House of Commons this is now an interesting question to ask. Would Mandelson seek the leadership? He appears to be well respected in a variety of social circles, and could provide the charisma that Labour need. An article in the Telegraph draws on that today, when saying:

You can be sure that Peter Mandelson is asking these questions. He also knows that Labour's greatest minus is Mr Brown and the Tories' greatest plus is Mr Cameron. He can do something about the former and not the latter. He may see an assassin's logic here, and act with incredible speed to save the party, which, in his weird way, he loves. I wish I could be sure that the Tories were ready.

However, a very interesting article in the Telegraph raises some good points of objection to Mandelson being the next leader.

I recognise that there are others included in this debate, but I just wanted to give a brief viewpoint regarding the main contenders.

Signs of Cameron's opportunism shinning through?....

2009-07-25T08:00:00.000+01:00

A recent poll by PoliticsHome, shows how Cameron is not trusted by the majority of polled to implement his planned reforms as radically as he makes out. Hopefully, with the news of a Channel 4 documentary to be shortly aired showing several Tory cabinet members' (including Cameron) time in the Bullingdon dinning club at Oxford, this may be a sign that people are starting to see through the Cameron charm.

Disappointingly but expected, the Tories won the by election in Norwich North, but if looked at closely, they failed to gain a convincing victory in terms of increasing the number of actual votes. The big swing that they forced is more due to a collapse of the Labour vote, which is worrying for the Liberal Democrats, as they are failing to capitalise on the lost Labour supporters, but that is another story. This arguably could point to evidence for the poll, that even though the Tories are winning the elections that are taking place, there lacks the euphoria that surrounded the Blair era.

If you look at some of my earlier blogs, I comment on some of the recent proposals that the Tories have outlined, such as how they want to introduce a 3 month 'cool off' period for married couples, or how they want to take mobile phones off 'anti-social' behaving kids. As stated in those blogs, these proposals show the disjuncture between Tory policy and rhetoric that there would be a route and branch change of power from the centre to local people. The few policies that have been outlined by the Tories support the assertion of the poll, that the Tories would fail to implement the radical policy changes that they promise.

The poll may provide a glimmer of hope, that not all is lost and that maybe the general public may come to see more clearly through the facade of Cameron and the Tories.

Berlusconi as a Feminist?...

2009-07-25T00:17:00.000+01:00

There must be something wrong when Berlusconi, the sex mad Italian Prime Minister, is called a Feminist. Believe it or not, Peter Popham in his article around the recent sex allegations regarding Berlusconi, does just that.

Granted, it appears to be tongue in cheek. However, there is still a level of seriousness around the comments. Popham seems to think that Berlusconi is helping lift the women's careers by providing them with opportunities such as in the media empire he controls, or his government. On the contrary, as much the same as too much positive discrimination can act as a patronising reinforcement of women's oppression in society, the way Berlusconi treats women can also be seen as a form of oppression.

He is not providing the women the opportunities because he feels that they deserve it on merit of talent. Instead, the women are provided these opportunities on mere bribery so that they fulfil his own desires. This type of attitude will only seek to make women appear even more like the sex objects that the cultural attitude and the porn industry create.

It is very much up to Berlusconi in how he pursues his personal life, but to call him a Feminist is in my opinion, ludicrous.

Why does no one ever talk about the moral dimension surrounding Trident?

2009-07-23T20:09:00.000+01:00

The renewal of Trident, which the government is set on, is for one thing a total waste of money. Disappointingly, the Liberal Democrat's attitude towards Trident is similar to the Tories, as shown by today's FT article with David Davis.

Again, we fail to properly set our polices aside to the Tories as they too advocate the view that we should not see a renewal of Trident. Instead, like us, the Tories believe that we should have a cheaper alternative to Trident due to the economic mess that we are in now. However, what I argue is that the Liberal Democrats should demonstrate a fundamentally different view to the Tories and Labour, full stop.

Instead of looking for cheaper alternatives, stop buying into nuclear weapons completely. We have enough as it is, and we should focus on achieving global disarmament, instead of trying to appease the Sun newspaper. This is a fundamental moral issue, which many people miss. Why does everything seem to be about the economic implications? Can we not have one policy that is purely doing what is best for the world, and lead the way in creating a safer and peaceful world.

I have heard similar Liberal Democrats, expressing concerns about the way the leadership talk about Trident. We do not need a cheaper alternative; instead use the £20bn we save from not renewing it to make sure that we do not cut our key proposals, such as scrapping tuition fees.

We are never going to lead the way in disarmament if we do not start somewhere, or is this just another aspiration?

We often forget that MPs are humans too...

2009-07-23T16:48:00.000+01:00

After watching The Thick of It, it reminded me of Alistair Campbell and his struggles with depression, and how he has promoted more equality for mentally ill people in politics.

His struggles with mental health really make you remember that MPs and those that work within parliament are real people. I was happy to hear that Brown was taking five weeks off, as the stress that he must have been under recently must have been unbelievable.

This interestingly relates to the expense scandal, as even though the coverage it has received and the anger that the public have felt towards politics as a result is just, we often forget the effects on MPs health of the 24/7 intense media coverage. Andrew George was featured in a recent BBC article and expressed the stress that him and his family were under due to the media coverage, and how they were not provided a platform to defend themselves. Even though I am not sticking up for those MPs that have broken the law, we do sometimes have to just stop and think that they are human beings with emotions, and some of them may very well have mental health problems that make the recent events even more unbearable.

This is something Campbell has tried to address, as he wants to try to reduce the stigmatisation around mental health. This is particularly true for parliament, as there is a culture of secrecy around these issues, such as the current law that leads to MPs losing their seats if they are sectioned under the Mental Health Act. In a recent article,Campbell rightly points to how this reinforces the silence around mental health in parliament and needs to be addressed by government to help tackle the discrimination that forms around mental health problems.

The commitment that the Liberal Democrats have towards mental health is one of the reasons that I joined the party, and I hope that we can be a beacon for advocating a reduction in the stigmatisation around mental health that occurs in parliament amongst other institutions, as Alistair Campbell has.

Do we want an ex-Bullingdon bully to run the country?...

2009-07-22T11:42:00.000+01:00

The Mirror have rightly commented on how out of touch David Cameron is with the public. John Bercow was right in saying that Cameron can never really connect with the ordinary person on the street, as he has never had to go through a day of hardship himself, as so many other people have.

The Etonian is one of several amongst the shadow cabinet who have been privately educated and gone to Oxbridge. How can they truly represent the everyday person is beyond me. It links to a point I made in my blog "Misguided view of social inequality and higher education", of how state education will suffer from the lack of firsthand experience if the Tories were ever elected.

The Mirror also report that there is to be a Channel 4 documentary exposing the truth behind Cameron's days in the Bullingdon dinning club at Oxford university. This documentary will further help show how out of touch Cameron is with the general public, as not many people could go around trashing restaurants in a drunken state to then chuck money at the owner because 'daddy' was paying for it.

It is important to stress that I am not against every person who has had a private funded education and gone to Oxbridge being involved in the government, but to have an shadow cabinet full of these types of people is a little too far.

Stories and documentaries such as this need to be advertised well so that those who seem to have been fooled by the Tories rhetoric realise that they will fail to attend to the needs of the everyday person if they came into power.

P.s I wanted to attach the famous image of Cameron, Osborne and Johnson in their posh Bullingdon uniform that costs £3,000, but thought twice after the Tories seem to have got a little cross for the media using the image, I can't really think why that would be the case...

Update 23rd July: There is a really good article in the Mail today about the Bulligdon club, have a look...