How can the government promise a fairer, more prosperous and progressive society while cutting the legs from under the public sector, destroying the benefits system, shattering the schools for future program at a time when economic growth is at risk of a double dip recession. This is hardly an unpartisan view from myself however it seems that the coalition government is once again attempting a smoke an mirrors strategy that does little to dispell the general publics distrust of politicians and their assertions, promises and critiques. When remains abundantly clear as the government continues full steam with its austerity budget, is that many of the cuts to public services, benefits etc seem to have been brought in with ill-considered pace.

A recent report from the institute of Fiscal Studies has announced that the government’s cuts will hit the poorest families hardest. The government has denounced this report critiquing its methodology but it is hard to see that in the next two to three year’s how these austerity cuts will do anything other than punish the poorest in our society. The government’s own analysis simply desregards long term effects of the cuts while rich bankers continue to pile up their profits.

It would seem that Nick Clegg has done little to allay fears that this budget will do nothing for balancing inequality and reeling in the tax evaders and big bankers. Clegg has remained the small fish in the coalition partnership and has had little choice but to bed in further with the Conservatives with the hope that at somepoint he’ll be able to affect real policy decisions. He looks increasingly squirmish; unfamiliar to his own party and the general public. Although principled and honourably standing by the deal struck with the Conservatives. The liberals are being held to their aggrement on cuts to the economy they were so vocally against in the general election.

Of course cutbacks in spending, streamlining of government departments and the public sector needs to happen but as the Labour party set out in their manifesto, these cutbacks should only be introduced once we are sure that the economy is on a level footing.

Osbourne has tried to sugar coat the forthcoming cuts as much as he can but the evidence is pilling up that the £113bn cuts will do little but build on current income equality in Britain while the poorest in our society are hit by the benefit cuts, spiralling food costs and the threat of a double dip recession with unemployment figures sure to rise.

The Private finance initiative is biting back on the NHS and rallying opposition is rising from employees and doctors within the NHS over plans to put the power in GPs hands. Although the government has promised no real term cuts to front-line NHS services it is obvious that the NHS is suffering under Tory led initiatives which threaten the privatisation of the National Health Service. The government has employed smoke and mirror tactics to push through policy which will damage and destroy our public services and public service jobs.

The outlook is certainly not looking rosy. Although Osbourne would have us think otherwise, how can we possibly believe that the the government are honourably defending the NHS from “real cuts” amid welfare reforms, befit cuts and the impact of the PFIs on the NHS. I hold out little faith for the spending review this October.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/video/2010/aug/17/economy-georgeosborne

The money, which will include his £4 million advance and all future profits, will help fund a rehabilitation centre for injured soldiers.

Many have already questioned whether this commitment is a distasteful gesture of contrition or a genuine philanthropic dedication to the ‘courage and sacrifice’ of British troops who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The jury may still be out on that question but the eternal cynics among us have been quick to label Blair’s gesture a blatant PR exercise and a distasteful attempt to atone for his decision to send Britain to an illegal war in Iraq.

Would you trust this man?

I find it hard to believe that Blair’s decision to donate his profits is purely a public relations exercise and motivated by a desire to in some way “make up for” the decisions he has made. In truth what does he have to gain from this public gesture? His profile is already incredibly high and most people have already made their minds up about him. I do not believe that Blair would be so crass as to believe that donating the profits from his book would in anyway bolster his public profile or earn him some sympathy.

This donation will do little to persuade or change people’s views otherwise about Blair and his legacy; they have already made their minds up. Few who despise Blair’s actions as Prime Minister will bother to buy his book. It is their choice but should be lament condemn his simple and generous gesture. Regardless of ulterior motive, the manner in which the news was released also suggests that Tony Blair is hardly out for a public vote of confidence. No humiliating public press conferences, only a simple press release.

I believe that there is little value in criticising this donation to the British Legion. Blair should be judged in the Chilcot enquiry and by his own words.

Lets not castigate him so swiftly for a donation that will be most valuable to the efforts of the British Legion in helping those that have given so much to serve out country.

You can read what you want into Blair’s motivations but the money is surely more welcome in the pockets of the British Legion than the Tony Blair’s personal coffers.

Despite the fact that millions of Pakistanis’ across the flooded regions have lost their homes and their loved ones to the floods, Zadari seemed to think that it would be appropriate to continue his trip to Europe this week, rather than help with the relief effort, and stand by his countrymen in their hours of need.

Zadari may have wanted to share a few choice words with David Cameron after the British PM’s comments earlier this week, but for me it is troubling to think that he considers this of greater importance than his role as head of state of Pakistan. It is imperative that he sets the example and stands side by side with the people of Pakistan and the many aid agencies who are helping support the lives of all those affected.

It seems entirely bizarre to me that as President of Pakistan, Zadari seems so at ease with passing the responsibility for the relief effort entirely to Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gillani. Zadari has failed to demonstrate any solidarity with the people of Pakistan.

Zadari stated in an interview with Newsnight that dealing with the floods was the responsibility of Mr Gillani and that he had managed to persuade Sarkosy and Cameron to pledge money to the relief effort. However, this was money I believe would have more than likely been pledged already without Zadari’s presence in Europe. Through Zadari’s comments, I cannot help but sense a coarse disregard for his responsibilities.

Fatima Bhutto, the President’s niece, criticised Zadari’s visit to Britain, accusing him of abandoning the country, and taking the upper echelons of the Pakistani state to Europe away from Pakistan at a time when the citizen’s of the devastated region were desperately calling for visible and effective support from their government. Many in the region criticised the lack of government presence in the region, and Zadari’s trip, which has been criticised as a trip to help launch his son’s political career, is an exemplar of his abandonment of the region.

Demonstrators protest in Birmingham against Zadari's actions. Picture from the Mirror's coverage of the story.

In Birmingham this week, local people demonstrated their anger at Zadari’s ill timed trip to Britain, and at one point a shoe was thrown; expression enough that Zadari has failed to stand by his countrymen. Zadari seemed more concerned with winning a war of words over Pakistan’s terror responsibilities than the efforts of his country to save the lives of millions of Pakistanis’.

Not such an exciting ride ahead for the British public on the big dipper

Conservative plans to save our economy look more likely than ever to drive Britain into a double dip recession that will hit the poorest in our society hardest.
I am no expert on the economy, but like half the country, I have been trying desperately to get my head around the baffling and disingenuous nature of the ConDem’s emergency budget.
Despite Osbourne’s claims to the contrary, that the emergency budget will protect the most vulnerable in our society, it seems hard to fathom that this will ever be achieved amid the scale of cuts and tax increases imposed by the Conservative budget which has been rushed through and implemented with wanton disregard for its effects on the lives of the poor and disadvantaged across the UK.
With the reduction of tax credits, a rise in VAT and a deepening unemployment crisis; largely caused by swingeing public sector cuts, the poverty gap is set to grow if the government continues with its irrational binge of cuts.
Regardless of Osbourne’s claims to the rejuvenating qualities of the emergency budget, it is rapidly becoming clear that public spending cuts will not only threaten, but stunt and even reverse growth. Talk of a double dip recession has become increasingly popular with little convincing counter argument.
Unemployment, which is currently at 8%, is set to rise and it would seem that we are only at the thin edge of the wedge as the extent of public sector cuts begins to bite.
Cameron and Osbourne along with their pals at the Office for Budget Responsibility are living in fantasy land if they believe that growth in the private sector will match anywhere near the wide scale cuts in the public sector. The gap is two wide a stimulated business sector will do little more than line the pockets of those already winning from the government’s lenient tax increases on the rich.
The private sector has had to tighten its belt and it seems completely unfeasible that the private sector will ever be able to provide the number of jobs or the amount of growth necessary to balance the effects of public sector cuts. Much of the private sector relies on the stability of the public sector, and with half a million job losses predicted in the public sector; the private sector will not escape unscathed. It is estimated that the private sector faces an estimated 600-700,000 job losses; a total loss of 1.1million by 2015.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has been lambasted for their unrealistic employment forecasts, and 2.5 million jobs that they believe will be created over 5 years in the private sector seem completely illogical and desperately hopeful.
The key issues related to the loss of 1.2 million jobs are highlighted by David Blanchflower in his latest column in the New Statesman. How can the government expect those who have lost their jobs in the public sector, to jump straight into a private sector job that require a different set of skills in jobs situated in other parts of the country. A simple swap is certainly not the solution: 

‘It is unlikely that people fired from the public sector, such as care assistants, police officers and local authority workers, can simply jump to jobs in the private sector. Occupational differences between any new jobs and jobseekers will be a problem – a skills mismatch’ 

The chances are that most people who lose their jobs in the public sector will live in regions that are heavily dependent on the public sector, such as the north, while any new private-sector jobs are likely to be in different regions, ­especially the south, where access to housing will be a problem – a regional mismatch.’
What is most concerning is that cuts seem to have been delivered with the greatest disregard to those that will suffer at the hands of redundancy and unemployment. Rather than based on a measured timescale of cuts, the ConDem’s timetable of cuts seem set to destroy people’s lives and prospects as soon as possible, regardless of their impact on the lives of the poorest in our society.
Of course it is true that public sector organisations needed to tighten their belt and budgets need to be reduced with hard decisions to be made. But the way in which the ConDems have gone about their business seems entirely irresponsible.
I could go into more depth on some of these issues, but for my sake and yours, I think I’ll avoid getting involved any deeper with the figures or intricacies of the budget. There are many more layers to this issue to consider but my knowledge fails to stretch much further than what I have already discussed, much of which is based on feelings and presumptions rather than real economic knowledge. But what I will say is that I don’t think it will be long until we experience a very real double dip recession and as David Blanchflower highlights in his column. There’s not much we are going to be able to do about it while the ConDems are at the helm: ‘Economic policy in the UK is being run by a bunch of ideological amateurs who are destined to fail, at enormous cost to the British people.’

Good luck to us all. I for one need to find a job sharpish! 

Policies rather than pandering must come to the fore in their forthcoming election campaign. But with Brown’s latest assault appealing to the “mainstream majority”, with the focus on a growing middle class and a development of social mobility, although extremely valuable; Labour runs the risk of alienating a ‘core vote’ that may widen further the gap between rich and poor. In this tough economic climate, the electorate need to be reassured by policies that can tackle their needs today and tomorrow. Health, education, the economy, and society are crucial battlegrounds that must be fought.

A commitment to labour values must be made with policies that appeal to ‘core voters’ and non-traditional voters alike. By no means is this an easy task. But Labour must be united behind common goals that do not reek of cynical electioneering; but real politics. In tackling the Conservatives ‘time for change’ slogan, the Labour party must expose exactly where the Conservatives policies fail.

Over the coming weeks and months, Gordon Brown must go on the offensive to meet and talk with the great British public; much like Barack Obama did in his historic election victory in 2008, as reigniting Labour’s contact with the general public is vitally important for the Labour party’s success; especially at a time when the distance between Whitehall and the common man seems greater than ever.

Douglas Alexander, one of the key ministers in charge of election strategy for the Labour party, has suggested that this is something that they are looking at in greater detail for the coming election. However, this must not be a whimsical admission to the election process. A commitment to greater conversation with the public must be sustained. Electoral reform should also not be discounted.  

While Gordon Brown’s ‘class war’ could be seen as a misguided and potentially ineffectual campaign to blight the character of the Conservative party, Ed Balls has professed the need for a united party that appeals to a wide spectrum of the British public. He said: “We must stand for all parts of Labour’s coalition and we should have the confidence to understand we can do so on the basis of enduring Labour values that appeal as much in my constituency, Doncaster North, as they do in Basildon.”

While the idea of a ‘core vote strategy’ has clearly been dismissed by Ed Balls and Gordon Brown, due to its risk of alienating the top half of British society, the Labour party must re-engage with the public through polices that evoke Labour values.

Ending poverty and exploitation are just two of the guiding Labour principles that James Purnell, Ex-Work and Pensions cabinet minister, believes are vitally important for a Labour victory. In the Guardian last week he wrote an inspiring article that the PM could do worse to take note of. In the article, Purnell stressed the importance of core Labour values that offered hope and radicalism. He highlights some of them in the article. He states that: “A larger vision is possible, one that measures up to the values, sweat and tears of the Labour movement. One per cent of the bailout going to recapitalise local areas is one very important way of saying society and people come first. A living wage is another. A cap on interest rates is a third. Giving parents real power is a fourth. If our next manifesto contains ideas like these, if it offers hope and radicalism, Labour can win.”

Gordon Brown must not be suckered into a tit for tat ‘class war’ debate, and he must take onboard the advise of his fellow ministers. Vision, policy and values must take Labour forward.

Patricia Hewitt looking a little suprised! "What? I made a fool of my own party?"

Bitter divisions within the Labour party were once again brought into focus this week by ex-cabinet ministers, Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon; who together launched a farcical leadership challenge with a letter that would undermine the efforts of the party to rebuild itself in time for one of the party’s most crucial election campaigns. The letter called for a secret ballot on the Labour leadership, but as the drama commenced on Wednesday afternoon, it soon became clear that the clumsy pair had no real idea what would come next, or indeed who would be a suitable replacement for Gordon Brown.

With no policy behind them and no potential replacement leader prepared to make a stand, the pair’s “coup” died a limp and farcical death. The episode only managed to drive the popularity and public trust of the Labour Party further into the mire, and is it a sign that the Labour party are unable to gather themselves as a united force to fight another general election. A disaffected party will never gain the support of the nation. As Ed Milliband stressed in this Sunday’s Observer, the Labour party need to pick themselves up and heal the divisions within the party in order to deliver and united election strategy to the electorate. And he also seemed to dismiss Gordon Brown’s “class war” which has been waged on the old Etonian Conservatives. He called for “the power of collective action” and a broad strategy that would appeal to the entire electorate. He said: “We must stand for all parts of Labour’s coalition and we should have the confidence to understand we can do so on the basis of enduring Labour values that appeal as much in my constituency, Doncaster North, as they do in Basildon.”

The latest leadership challenge has made Labour look even more clueless and less united than ever before. And it is to the detriment of the party that these leadership challenges are becoming an all too regular occurrence in Gordon Brown’s term as leader. More “self destructive days” as Ed Milliband put it, will only deepen Labours problems which, left unresolved may keep Labour out of power for more than 1 or 2 terms. Continued indecision over whether Gordon Brown is a legitimate leader and the right man for the job, along with further divisions between Brownites and Blairites, threatens to scupper any glint of hope Labour may have of pulling off one of the most remarkable general election victories of all time. Wednesday’s letter was counter productive, timed completely wrong and a damaging indictment of the party’s deep divisions. With an election only 5 months away, the idea of challenging the leadership without any real idea of an adequate replacement seems completely foolish. Damaging the party’s public image – just as the polls suggested that the gap between Labour and the Conservatives was narrowing – was an incompetent act of self sabotage. If Hewitt and Hoon believed that there was any chance of ousting Gordon Brown, they should have formulated policies, a leadership candidate and a real plan for a legitimate coup attempt. What was made clear this week is that nobody can really say who would be better that Gordon Brown to lead the party, and with key cabinet ministers backing the PM, all that was achieved was another round of bitter infighting. Denounced by those in and outside the cabinet, the ironic fact remains that the only person really capable of launching a successful leadership challenge is Gordon Brown himself.

By Thursday morning, Gordon Brown was brushing the whole episode off as a mere blip. However, perhaps it is time that Gordon puts the doubters to rest and really delivers a united party with policies that the public can engage with, believe in and vote for. He has promised that he will lead the labour party through another term. But for this to happen, Gordon Brown must deliver some cutting blows on the opposition, abandon his so called “class war”, and reignite the public’s belief in the government. Although campaigning has started frighteningly early there is a long time to go, but all parties need desperately to formulate a meaningful strategy that can actually deliver constitutional reform, economic reform and manageable public spending cuts.

The Sunday Telegraph/ICM survey shows Labour on 30 per cent, one point higher than last month’s poll. The Conservatives are unchanged on 40 per cent and the Liberal Democrats down one point on 18 per cent. Repeated in an election the figures would give the Conservatives a very small Commons majority of roughly 16 seats. However as it stands the polls tell us very little and by next week it could be David Cameron that is the stocks, such is the peculiarities of British Politics. If one thing is for certain the Labour and Conservatives need to stop their bitter infighting and cheap jibs, and start appealing to the electorate rather than their egos.

"I'll cut the deficit, the NHS, the BBC, Ordnance Survey, Anything whatever in fact, We should not be allowed to govern again."

Dear valued readers,

Being a typical man, I struggle to multitask. Although this is an incredibly weak excuse for not updating this blog, I have now handed in (almost) all of my uni work so now have no excuse for not getting stuck into this blog.

I have also decided to change the focus of this blog slightly. I started it as part of my course (I study Journalism and Cultural Criticsim) to comment on general news stories that caught my attention. But with my interests lying in politics, and many of the articles relating to politics already, this blog will from now on only focus on British Politics. I hope that it will provide a bit of informed debate and few different angles on stories that may not always be in the headlines. I might chuck a few cultural bits and bobs in here too. We’ll see how it goes.

Thanks,

Gareth

While the majority of world leaders tried valiantly to agree a legally binding treaty, narcissistic global posturing ultimately held back the conference, proving that it is by no means an easy task to unite the world behind a global climate deal. Despite the promise, the commitments and the rhetoric, the Copenhagen accord delivered little more than loose promises and flaky commitments. The legally binding treaty, regardless of how ambitious it truly was, stayed agonizingly out of reach throughout the two week process.

A legally binding treaty in reality never stood a chance against the likes of China, who refused to agree on targets and spent the two weeks obstructing any discussion that would threaten them economically. Barack Obama was exasperated by Wen Jiabo’s lack of commitment and unwillingness to talk directly with world leaders. The machiavellian Wen Jiabo avoided the limelight at every turn, regularly sending lower order diplomats in his place, holding secret meetings with South Africa and India and doing everything in their power to delay, complicate and obstruct a global deal. China, who’s coal based industry is doubling year on year were never really likely to agree to the commitments they first laid down; A 40% reduction in global emissions? Yeah right. Economic progress is far more important for China who duck and dived the serious decisions.

The Copenhagen accord, which was ratified by 192 nations on Saturday morning at 9.30am, provides only the foundations – and weak foundations at that – of a legally binding and accountable agreement. Vitally important targets were missed during this conference. Targets for reductions in greenhouse gases were not agreed upon, a deadline for a legally binding treaty failed, and information on where climate funds would come from were missed out.

The finer details are to be thrashed out in the next six months; including deforestation and emission cuts. This will all then lead to a major meeting in Mexico at the beginning of December 2010. However, the world missed its most promising opportunity to stand up take responsibility for your delicate globe. However, I may be being a little harsh. These things are never easy.

We must be careful not to decry the Copenhagen summit entirely. As what we did see was the beginning of a sea change, both politically and economically. Global warming has become a truly global issue for the very first time, and nations around the world are willing to stand up and be held responsible. The majority of global politicians have united behind a desire to curtail, as swiftly as possible, the threat of global warming.

I was heartened by the passion that was so evident at the conference among the hundreds of politicians, scientists and diplomats that were working day and night to come out with a legally binding deal. The summit was a colourful and complex affair, you only had to read the papers this weekend to discover the intricacies of the conference which involved all-night meetings, lost sleep, political drama and plenty of desperate diplomatic wrangling. Global diplomacy was on the front line, and while it failed to deliver what it promised we must not lose hope that it will deliver within the next year.

The Copenhagen summit fails on all important details, leaving a weak and disappointing accord that falls desperately short of what is needed. But with ambition so high, I believe that all is not lost. There is room for optimism, and lets hope that they don’t leave it too late as now is not the time for the waiting game.

For reference: Gordon Brown’s response to the climate conference is really interesting. Once again he seems to have his head screwed on when it comes to global diplomacy. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/21/copenhagen-treaty-gordon-brown

Alistair Darling has a tough 6 months ahead of him if he is to convinve the public that Labour can be trusted in charge of the publuic finances

Alistair Darling will face minute scrutiny tomorrow on the details of his second pre-budget report. It will of course also provide the perfect opportunity for Darling to make a strong and determined stance as chancellor. It is vitally important for the Labour Government that Darling delivers a full, frank and progressive report, which is unlikely to kind to the public purse.

Darling is a characteristically dogged and unassuming politician, and whatever he delivers tomorrow is not likely to be brash, overly ambitious or daring. But before we know more about what’s going to be in the report, I can’t help but wonder how far Darling will actually come down on the banks. And indeed, how far he realistically can. Bankers’ bonuses are not a simple cut and dry decision as the British economy relies so heavily on the financial sector as one of its main sources of revenue.  Attacking the banks could prove to be incredibly counter productive and in opposition to Labour’s characteristically laissez faire attitude toward the city. 

The Government borrowed an astonishing £175bn this year and if the Government is to maintain its triple A credit status, cuts will need to wide, large and undoubtedly painful. The Government suggested in the Queen’s Speech in November that it should be written into law that it becomes a legal obligation for the Government not to let borrowing spiral out of control. They have also promised that by 2014, Government debt will be halved, but this remains a wildly ambitous target. A number of taxes including an increase on national insurance (Alistair Darling’s favourite choice of taxation) is expected to raise £9bn, while a Windfall tax on the banks will also add to the pot. The money raised will be small in relation to the deficit, and will be in no way enough for prolongued growth. In tax the answer does not lie.

Labour have advocated a slow and steady approach to recovery, while others, including the Conservatives, believe that vast cuts in the public sector combined with cuts in government administration and bureaucracy need to come now. When these cuts should replace fiscal stimulus remains the majorly contentious issue. While cutting unnecessary spending within the government, we must also be wary of overly aggressive cuts in public spending, which I believe, will only deepen rather than alleviate many financial issues within our country.

While the Conservatives are quite happy to project Labours debt on a foreboading building that teeters close to the end of the Thames, I remain unconvinced that a fresh faced, and ultimately unexperienced George Osbourne will be able to do any better. For now the Conservatives can sit fairly quietly while watching the Labour government crumble around them, but what the Conservatices would put in place remains questionable. Cutting back on the public sector is a risky business and as Professor Blanchflower stated on Newsnight last week, it is the financial sector that has failed, not the public sector. Why punish the public sector at such an early stage of recovery when we know that the financial recovery will prove to be a painful experience for all.

The British economy is in a state. It has been desecrated by the Labour government, who after so many years of unrelenting growth have managed to botch it all up by allowing the city to grow with little to no regulation. As the saying goes if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. But when it is broken, as thoroughly as our economy is now, how are Labour going to fix it. Some of the answers may come out tomorrow but the real sting in the tail, I am sure, will come after the next general election. Whether it is the Conservative or the Labour party who are forced to make wide and extensive cuts, tough decisions will have to be made. We are already seeing cuts in the MOD budget and the Higher Education budget. What will be next?

The economy remains a complex and intricate area of politics, which befudals much of the British public. It is vital that tomorrow Darling lays out the lay of the land in laymans terms with simply direct and clear plans for the future. The state of our public purse is at stake, and with my limited knowledge of economics, I’m incredibly glad that I am not in charge of that little red suitcase.