Lost his fanboys/fangirls

Some of the most vocal supporters for Nick Clegg during the Lib-Dem election campaign were students. Many lib-dem constituencies have universities, and this was reflectd by Clegg visiting many uni's and having lots of snaps taken of him standing alongside students and holding his famous pledge to oppose any tuition fee rise.

We know now that Clegg was doing nothing more than electioneering. It's shameful that he was so good as to actually fool so many people. I mean, there's a big difference between Blair making promises in  1997 and not fulfilling all of them, and Clegg's down right lying.
Honestly, we've come to expect misery from the tories, but from a party that champions it's progressive attitude and policies, the self-proclaimed saviours of Britain and British politics... it's kind of sad to see how they really weren't any different. Had it been the case that I was in a liberal-tory marginal, I would have voted Lib-dem, which is what Lord Adonis advocated late in the election campaign, and that means it hurts for me too.

The only good thing to arise from this is that students seem to be finding their voice again. Since the shameful lack of action on  the trade union front, students appear to be 'leading the fight' as the guardian puts it.
This is all well and good, if overstated, but students alone isn't enough. Student action needs to increase, and increase by a lot, alongside trade union activity and the population in general.
If we don't act now, then they'll get away with this mutilation of Labour efforts, and I'm not just talking the last 13 years, I'm talking universal benefits, social care, work and pensions. The whole shebang. They're leaving no prisoners.
They're not operating inside of a mandate. The tories didn't achieve a majority. In 1997, Labour's victory was a clear mandate, and the 2001 election was a mandate to 'keep up the good work'. The reduction in seats in 2005 can be  largely attributed to the Iraq war and the handling of the whole thing. The point is that neither Cameron nor Clegg came even close to achieving that kind of mandate, so they're acting on ideology (well, the tories are... God knows what drives the 'Liberal' Democrats... either a misguided sense of 'What's best' or more likely power starved) and that's just wrong. The tories are nothing more than the largest minority.
So you're not a student? Why does that mean you can't protest? If we all looked at things from a selfish perspective society would get nowhere, we'd still have the death penalty, corporal punishment in schools, no NHS...the list goes on. the tuition fee battle has taken on the persona of the entire fight against cuts, we need to recognise this. If they win here, they could very well steam roll their way through opposition to other cuts and hikes. If you oppose any aspect of the ConDem coalition government and it's policies, then you need to back the students. I'll barely be affected by the tuition rise, but that doesn't mean I think everyone after me should have to be paying off their fees till they're fifty.

Back the students.

No Pasaran

'No Pasaran' has been re-adopted by Anti-Fascists such as UAF

So, I don't usually post such blatant socialist 'propaganda' ...But when I'm blogging about anti-fascism, then I have every right to.
I don't know if any of you saw the videos or news footage of the recent EDL rally in Leicester, but since I live there, I bore witness. I saw their taunting, their rally cries of racist fascism, Nazi-like salutes.... But I also saw communities come together to fight this. Unite Against Fascism, who recently re-envisaged 'No Pasaran' using it in response to the growth of 'English Nationalism' better known as 'Fascists'. People of all religions and colours came together against the EDL en mass to protect themselves as well as places like mosques.
The EDL were violent, and aggressive. Just google it, better yet, search for videos. It really is disgusting what they were like.

With these spending cuts hitting the poorer and working class hardest, to the point of wiping out some local economies and mass unemployment, and the growth in support for nationalism.... I think it's about time Unions gathered, and reorganised to hold strong against a government intent on destroying the working class and a group of (mainly) working class out to institute hatred and fascism. We all need to take a lead out of the international brigades' book and make a bid to combat these Europe wide cuts and Europe wide growth of nationalism - although the EDL has had little success expanding overseas.

No Pasaran.To cuts. To Fascists.

Comprehensive (but totally ignorant) Spending Review

George Osborne announced the Comprehensive Spending Review yesterday, on top of earlier cuts.

So yesterday, at 12:30 on the dot, began the most devastating cuts (when added to the previous announced cuts) in post-war times. Not since the 1930's have cuts of this scale been made, the devastating results of which will become abundantly clear soon enough.

This 'slash and burn' approach is not the way to run a government. I was under the (perhaps false) impression that our government exists to represent the people and facilitate the needs of the nation by providing services and funding to it's people. It's a brief description, yes, but the no matter how you phrase it, the principal stays the same; Our government is supposed to help, and not hinder, the people both collectively AND individually. It's wrong then, in this view, to simply destroy the lives and livelihoods of individuals and families for 'the greater good'. I'd go as far as to say that there is no circumstance where 'the greater good' can be fully justified. Then again, I'm a leftist, so I would say that. In this case though, the greater good is the idea that if unemployment has to exceed 10% for a few years to reduce the deficit, then so be it.
I already made a brief point in my last post about the national debt and the deficit, and I while do agree that some cuts do need to be implemented to reduce the deficit and eventually get rid of it (over a period of time) I do not think this should be at the cost of millions of people's lives.

£7 billion was slashed from welfare, making it a total of £18 billion from welfare since they entered office on the fateful day of the formation of the coalition, the selling of the Liberal soul. That's not even melodrama. When you promise to cut tuition fees, and raise the support of hundreds of thousands of students up and down the country, then go ahead and double it and in some cases triple it, then actually - thatcounts as selling your soul to the Tory devil.
You can't scale back the welfare state to this degree, then cut 490,000 public sector jobs. You cut from one angle or the other. This pincer motion will result in mass unemployment, mass homelessness and mass general unrest up and down the United Kingdom.

Let me spell it out. Public sector workers already took a pay cut in the form of a pay freeze (inflation devaluing their pay means essentially they're taking a cut in real terms) cutting money to pension schemes whilst the pension age rises (probably up to 70 by the time I'm ready to retire, grim future) and then slashing 490,000 public sector workers, means something, yes something, WILL HAPPEN IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR TOO. Think of all the areas in the private sector that rely, in some way or another, on the public sector. If you're cutting 490,000 public sector workers, then maybe 300,000 (or possibly a lot more) will be cut in the private sector. The cuts made to other departments will result in similar knock on effects, like the department which handles housing, the housing budget has been slashed by over 60%... that's a huge cut!Especially in a time where theres already a housing shortage. Now, with that kind of budget cut, less houses will be built (an estimated 300,000). Less houses being built means less construction contracts and less money going to the construction industry. Which will result in job losses, numbered at around 280,000.
Add that to the expected 100,000 job losses as local councils make mass lay-offs due to funding shortages now.
That's now 1.17 million people added to the unemployment pool.

But again, we have to add to those numbers, this time with mass redundancies made in retail, financing and core industries. Supermarkets and fast food stores will cut staff without batting an eye when they notice their profit margins dropping rapidly as people now relying on state benefits (which have been slashed) find themselves scrimping and scraping (and possibly homeless). As a result of further decline in demand, core industries like steel will again find large scale redundancies, leading to yet more unemployed. The finance sector won't get by either, lack of consumer confidence and general lack of money means they'll be bitten by the cuts bug too. As tuition fees sky rocket, there'll be less young people in higher education, so that's an influx of young people jobless and with inadequate qualifications.

Now, I'm certainly no expert, but you tell me - how is this beneficial?

National debt? Deficit? End of Britian as we know it? Grow up.

Borrowing only became 'a problem' during the global banking crisis in 2008.

The deficit and national debt aren't anything to even bat an eye over.
They're not a problem. I'm deadly serious. We don't even need to make cuts, that whole idea is, frankly, bullshit, but as per usual the mainstream tabloid media has sided with the fat cats in Whitehall.

It's not an issues because simply; we can grow our way out of this.
We could switch to the euro as well, that would only help considering how strongly the euro is bouncing back, and if the UK took it up we'd be in an even better situation as that can only serve to strengthen the euro. Arab oil is going to be traded in euro's, not dollars anymore.

We could have just invested further, and we'd grow our way out. After WW2 and the US war loans, we didn't decided to just pay it off in one go did we? No. We paid over time as our economy grew.
When you have a mortgage, you don't pay it off in a single lump sum do you? No. You pay it off over 25 or 30 years.
Same thing applies. We're risking double dip by cutting left, right and centre. There's no justification to cutting university budgets and raising uni fees. They're already removing universal benefits, the most important British advancement since 1945, they're saying this will actually improve things, I think they should cast their minds back to pre-1945 after means tested benefits came in, and the lower-middle class became worse off than the 'poor'.

Comrade Cable

So I've devoted most of the text on this blog to bashing the tory party (and rightly so), but once again I find myself discussing the Liberal Democrats.

Not sure how many of you caught Vince Cable's speech today, but I was listening to it intently and he said some pretty important things giving some pretty powerful impressions. First up is that Cable placed himself to the far left of the lib-dem party, knowingly, and second is that both the lib-dem and tory leadership let him. He addressed the hall of people as 'comrades', obviously a poke of fun at his critics who cite him as being too far to the left, but what was vitally important was his very blatant criticisms of capitalism and his pointing out that currently 'competition' is only speeding up the crushing of new and small businesses, counter to right wing claims. But his solution is to correct this and make a fairer and 'more free' market, laissez faire, still a liberal economy, and hardly what Labourites and lefty lib-dems were hoping to hear, but then again, lib-dems are prepared to accept it as gospel.

I haven't fallen for it. I'd like to trust Vince Cable, heck I think he's a brilliant man and would love to see him as a labour minister, but even if this really are his own words - the fact that Dave and Gideon are happy for a major minister to blurt out policies and intentions (sometimes) counter to the official line is evidence enough that Cable is being used as a lib-dem 'leftist outlet' of sorts. It keeps enough of the further left lib-dems happy to let the con-dem's continue their work.
As ingenious as it is, it's also damaging. Damaging to the progressive liberal agenda and damaging to Labour's chances of converting leftist lib-dems.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/22/vince-cable-no-marxist

Buyers Remorse

So it's the Liberal Democrat conference today (Sept. 19th), and it'll be Clegg's big task to lighten the mood, because at best, that's all he can do.
Vince Cable can put on a brave face, talk about 'necessary austerity measures', but as ex-Labour, and a man of the progressive centre-left, Cable will be cringing at every cut passed onto him from Dave and Gideon via Clegg. Lib-Dems are starting to speak out, because sure, they wanted to be in government, but they're realising that as junior partners they have less than a quarter of the power, but taking half the blame. The centrist lib-dem supporters will no doubt be praising their party, as they're not being mentioned in papers alongside the words 'failure' and 'a joke' for once. But the far left of their party (yes, apparently it does exist) are not so easily swayed by smooth talk and are beginning to question the policy of 'sell thine morals, for only good can cometh', and as a result have become the target of leadership candidates and brothers, David and Ed Miliband. David put forward his pledge to win thousands of lib-dem voters in the coming months, which may seem ambitious, but the natural trend so far has been a drifting of support, amongst the general public, away from the government, backed up by the influx of new Labour Party members in the aftermath of our election defeat (some 25,000 last I heard... which means maybe a few thousand more by now?) and the polls constantly showing increased support for the Labour party at the expense of the con-dems.

And considering the Labour Party doesn't even have a leader (although Harriet Harmen has done a fine job filling in) I can see things only getting better. I personally endorse Ed Miliband, but I'd be happy with David or Andy Burnham - all three are equally fit to lead. When the winner of the leadership election is announced on the 25th, they'll be quick to make sure any dissidents fall into line as the party unites behind them. We have no choice, if we don't unite and remain that way until the next election, then we might never recover from the defeat.
But if we can hold up our end, then chances are those floating voters will *fingers crossed* turn to Labour as a viable and proper alternative. The lack of satisfaction that many Liberal Democrats (MP's included) are feeling is leaving them with buyers remorse, which can be only to the detriment of the con-dem coalition. But you have to hand it to them, managing to stay inert and useless this long has to be some sort of record?

Great timing....

So I'm going on holiday for a week before I go to uni... I need the break...
And apparently the only internet available is that pay internet where you by the minute or hour or whatever... and to be frank I'm not paying through the teeth to get internet on holiday... so...

I'll be back in a week, so I'll post then, unless I find a starbucks or something with free wi fi. Really sorry...actually, I'm not that sorry, I'll be on holiday after all...some big political story better not break while I'm on holiday!

Back with a vengeance! (minus the vengeance)

So I've had a little break!I didn't give up on the blog, fear not! But I was in Uni mode... and still am... but I'm gonna start posting again! Which is always good...

I'll get to posting a new article maybe tomorrow...as it's a bit late and I haven't any immediate inspiration.

Stay tuned!

16 Votes - A chance at real change.

Liam's campaign page on the Battlefront II website.

You may or may not have heard of Channel 4's project called 'Battlefront'.

"Battlefront is an online/on-telly Channel 4 project starring a crew of 14-21-year-olds with big ideas, big hearts and big ambitions. With the help of experienced mentors and a dedicated Battlefront team, Battlefronters turn their issues into fully-fledged campaigns and set off on a journey to achieve something incredible."

(Link to video with further info)

 Well one of the young people competing to be picked as the 12th campaigner is Liam Young, from Lincoln in the UK. His campaign is about lowering the voting age in the UK to 16, and he already boasts the support of David and Ed Miliband as well as both Sarah and Gordon Brown.
Although other campaigns have been launched in the past, Liam is truly committed and has a real chance of finally catapulting the debate into the media and governmental limelight to hopefully pass it into legislation. He has also received the backing of several left leaning blogs, this blog included. I would like all readers to please pledge support for his campaign by visiting this link and pressing the 'Vote' button.

Liam's '16 Votes' campaign logo.

He also has a website at http://www.16votes.org.uk/ as well as an introductory video to his campaign if you want more info.

Finally, to help fund his campaign Liam is having wristbands created, please pledge support by voting for his campaign and then buying one of the wrist bands right here.

The Ongoing Digital Battle

 

 Continued backlash by civil rights campaign groups 38 Degrees and Open Right Group (ORG) among others towards the Condem's pressing ahead without consultation.

For many of us, the Digital Economy Bill wasn't the end. We had problems before it, and we still have problems... Only more... The bill was a victory for privatisation, big business, restriction.. And a defeat for free speech, human rights, common sense and consumers.
In the digital age it's vital that people recognise the importance of our actions and the regulations we impose because they can and will affect the future of Britain's growing digital based economy and the rights of consumers online. Internet access is quickly becoming a human right, some European countries have already declared it in law.

But what I have a problem with today is the blatant violation of consumer rights and trading standards in that most Internet Service Providers (ISP's) are able to get away with murder time and time again. Ofcom and independent watchdog's have received masses of complaints, and rightly so, as ISP's go unchecked in their deceit. Internet users are, sometimes unknowingly, ridden roughshod over by these internet 'moguls'.
File sharing, often portrayed as a terrible thing by conservative media (the kind where you wouldn't be surprised if they branded the internet as a cancer causing travesty to humanity), is used by so many people for such a range of different reasons. Consumer's aren't told about the ISP's right to tell you anything the hell they like whilst doing something totally different, for example your 'unlimited' bandwidth being capped or receiving speeds less than half of what you're paying for.
I think it's vital that we call for stronger and solid regulations on ISP's, removing these voluntary regulations' and put more control in the hands of the users. The government needs to recognise that the internet plays such a huge role in modern Britain, and the people need to recognise that if we don't act now, the government will without consent and and not necessarily in our favour.

'Austerity Measures', tighten your belt, stiff upper lip, and the rest of the crap we're fed.

Laugh it up D&G, laugh it up... because we won't let it last forever.

Mr. Osborne has his little mind set on this idea that somehow, the people of Britain elected this government to tear it to shreds.

Gideon talks about these 'austerity measures' as though they are a dose of medicine that Britain has to take, only there's no sugar cube to take the edge off the bitterness. Like taking bitter medicine, I feel a lump in my throat as Gideon strips away another layer of Labour progress with each passing day.
As if he hadn't done enough damage already by squeezing the poorest in the poorest regions by revoking funding from organisations set up to spur economic growth outside the capital and it's tributaries, putting our education in jeopardy by making university education extortionately priced and by cutting money from schemes that gave young people a chance in life - Gideon is now ringing out the towel by 'reviewing over 400 tax reliefs', you know, the ones awarded to people who can barely afford to live as it is.

He justifies his cuts with 'foreign markets' and 'global investors' as well as a ridiculous amount of jargon, and excuse the crudeness, but for Christ's sake Gideon you just don't bloody get it. I'm no economist, but when I talk about Britain and it's economy, I'm talking about it's people, families, jobs. I'm sure that collectively the Tory MPs and their 'chums' could donate enough money to stop the rise in VAT or keep funding to the Future Jobs Fund.
But back on track, he needs to stop talking about his friends the bankers and start telling the truth, that he fully plans to squeeze we common people till we're dry. This absurd idea that raising VAT is in our best interests makes me wonder if he's ever even been into a high-street shop or a supermarket. I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that when things get more expensive, things you wouldn't consider every day necessities, be it by a few pence to a few pounds, I stop buying them.

My personal opinion is that he's a small and cowardly little man. But I'd voice these opinions no matter who took this approach. Of course I understand Labour would have made cuts, but not nearly as rapid as this. Being on the receiving end of the cuts, and knowing they're about to hit me personally, it feels vindictive, vengeful and like he's just trying to 'get back at labour', an approach Labour didn't take in '97 - heck they kept and used policies that were beneficial!

Mr. Osborne needs to take a good hard look in the mirror and think, am I doing this for Tories, or am I doing this for the British people? Because if it is the former, then you should not be in a position of power, and it really is as simple as that.


Thoughts and comments greatly appreciated.

There is no no.

.

I've just come back from work, it's coming up to 4:30am, but I'm inspired, so I'll write this now.

What's been getting to me lately, through the news and through talking to people in general, is the ignorance and arrogance, people's attitudes, towards equality.
To me, equality is an all embracing word. It's all inclusive, and leaves nobody out. But this is a view apparently not generally accepted as I ignorantly once thought. No, instead equality is a word used when convenient, when it suits people most. Family and friends alike express horrifying levels of intolerance towards what I consider fellow human beings which they speak of as little more than a nuisance, a problem that should be solved.

But there is no scale from one to ten for equality. There is no equality for some, but not others. There is no 'ifs' and 'buts' for equality. There is no 'better people' and 'worse people'. And most importantly there is no 'later', 'in time' or 'what can one person do?'.
Equality is one or ten, you're for it or you're against it. Equality is for everyone, there are no exceptions. Equality is definitive, there are no variations. All humans are equal, this is equality. You cannot defer actively seeking equality, instead help in any way you can, because if we do not act now, then the cause is lost.
If you are against the idea that every single person on earth should and must be equal, then you are prejudiced and intolerant. You're against creating a modern society, you're against a fair and equal future, you're against multiculturalism, you're against individualism, human rights and freedoms both collective and independent. It is 'inhuman' to not support equality for all humans.

Do not be disillusioned into thinking that we are living in enlightened times. The country and indeed the world is filled with inequalities.
I demand equality. No more discrimination and intolerance. Complete equality regardless of age, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, mental ability, income/wealth, background, location, culture, opinions, health or anything else I may have missed out.

This is only a lot to ask if you don't believe that all of mankind are equal, otherwise, you, like me, believe this should be a given.

On a final note - it is best to remember that separate but equal is not equal. Maybe you should read up on the Us supreme court cases Plessy Vs. Ferguson and then Brown Vs The Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas (as well as the appropriate background reading if you wish) which should you give you a good idea of what I mean.

Schools for the poor.

Tories' plan for school on Saturdays is rejected by ATL Teachers Conference.

What is it with the Tories and their lapdogs we once called 'liberal' democrats?

I honestly can't understand why they are determined to further under-privilege lower income families. If it were up to Michael Gove, I'd have gone to school on Saturdays regardless of my abilities and potential. Because my family is low income, I would have had an extra day a week at school. The ignorant and rich among you are thinking "What's wrong with this? It'll give them the extra time they need", so let me spell it out for you - we don't want to go to school on Saturdays. It really is that simple. And anyone who thinks it's a good idea needs to look back and think 'Would I have wanted to give up my Saturdays when I was young to go to school an extra day?'.

On top of that, I shouldn't have to point out that this is income based segregation. No, I'm not being melodramatic. Sending children and young people to school and extra day because they're poor does is segregating them, and it's a step closer towards and ultimate Tory goal - segregating education along Plessy Vs Fergusen lines, with lesser facilities for the poorer. Maybe that last statement was a little melodramatic, but you understand what I'm saying.

I actually have a solution to the issues raised by Gove; "Children who come from homes where parents don't have the resources to provide additional stretch and cultural experiences could benefit from being in school for longer", and my solution is to not abolish Regional Development Agencies (RDA's). I've said it time and again but it's true, think about it.
Gove wants more of the 'stretch and challenge' that had been an area of focus under Labour, and they want more cultural experiences for young people. How many Condems actually know what RDA's do? Because part of their role is providing just that in the form of projects, residentials, festivals and a whole range of other experiences. To name but one of these - CultuRise. RDA funded. A project that aims to give young people more cultural experiences.
It would seem to me, and possibly anyone who opens their eyes, that abolishing the very thing that's achieving your aims is... self defeating, harmful and most certainly not in the public's and particularly young people's best interests.

Sit, stay, roll over, play dead!

It seems that big business has the Condems neatly wrapped up. 
I've already blogged about the despicable privatisation of education by Michael Gove, but now they've taken another step in that horrible direction in the form of Andrew Lansley's 'reforms'.

One would imagine that when the Condems talk about modernising and making things more efficient that their policies would be a little progressive and forward thinking, but no. Lansley has decided to abolish the Food Standards Agency, a watchdog set up in response to the growing concerns of consumer groups and after the BSE (mad cow disease) crisis which occurred, I should add, under Tory watch after they loosened regulations. I'm sure I don't need to go to much into the whole crisis, but some 150 have been killed by vCJD caused from eating infected meat, with a further 5 cases diagnosed every year (average). The FSA was set up to prevent anything like this happening again, and has been vital to strict regulations in regards to food. I don't think that strict regulation being imposed on the food industry is overly active government, and the FSA have battled with the food industry and helped make what we buy in supermarkets healthier, battling fast food companies and the ingredients they use.
To abolish the FSA for protecting consumers, that's everyone who eats (so, everyone) is groundless and can only been denoted to Lansley and the Condems yet again servicing big businesses and industry. Gove and Lansley have already mastered sit and stay, soon they'll learn play dead.
It worries me that this "government" (and I use that word with a pinch of salt) is managing to get away with this. They take advice from the Taxpayers Alliance, a group that has no relevance and certainly does not represent the tax payers in terms of their make up (upper middle class leadership, and can boast only several thousand members.... not exactly much in comparison to the tens of millions of actual taxpayers) and their vehemently conservative outlook, as well as media moguls like Rupert Murdoch - the Ernst Stavro Blofeld of the media. And when a regulatory body such as Ofcom challenge the relationship between the Tories and Murdoch the Tories turn around and squeeze them, threatening their very existence.
There's a big difference between pluralism and elitism.

I'm of the opinion that a government is there to serve the people, not the other way around. And removing protective watchdogs is NOT in the people's best interest. That's not a matter of opinion, it's fact, plain and simple.

Savage Cuts ignorant of regional needs

 To see the map through Tory eyes, ignore the black shaded regions.

Well, quite turbulent times we're in.
The emergency budget was announced yesterday by Gideon, and to be frank it was ignorant, smoke and mirror, damaging and ideological.

It's quickly becoming the rule of thumb that whatever Dave and Gideon tell you, believe the opposite. Apparently raising up to 20% is a fair thing to do....where as the poorest fifth of the population pay about 12% of their disposable income in VAT while the richest fifth pay about 4%.... so raising the VAT means that poorer people are paying more....that sounds fair right? I mean, after all, this is a 'progressive coalition' in Gideon's own words!

It's becoming a cliche on this blog, but.... it's just the same old Tories. Employers favoured over employees - Employers won't be paying the NI rise...however despite their earlier claim, employees will. How clever of them, only mentioning the employer so as not to draw attention to the issue.

But what worries and angers me the most is the utterly absurd claim that the load bearing for cutting the deficit will be spread evenly across the country. In the North-East 1 in 3 work in the public sector. That's a large figure, consistent with Northern Ireland and Wales. These three regions are also going to be the three to suffer most. Northern Ireland accounts for only 2% of the economy, and the North East only 3%. Cameron can encourage business all he wants, but the North East largely relies on the public sector, and is not an attractive place for investment. On top of this by throwing out Regional Development Agencies (in the North East's case - One North East) he is scrapping the very organisations that have been building and developing the private sector.
Consider this in light of the average full-time salaries in 2008:

Top three:

• London £46,462
• South East £32,819
• East £30,318

Bottom three:

• Wales £25,677
• North East £25,551
• Northern Ireland £25,550

We can see the striking difference there. When you tally up the facts; that these three regions are poorer, receive less funding, have a lower household income, suffer much higher rates of social deprivation, much more reliant on the government and public sector amongst many other things - then we can begin to see why the economic output per person is around 25% less than the UK average. Freezing public sector pay is therefore unfairly hitting the regions most dependant on public sector for jobs.


A £500 million 'super-hospital' in the North that had been in planning for 5 years and on the eve of fruition, was scrapped by Gideon, despite life expectancy and health in the north being again lower than the national average, whilst in London and the South, the wealthiest areas, two such hospitals are going ahead.



These emergency budget was aimed at striking down the poorer, and the more deprived regions. It was aimed at bolstering the private sector where the private sector flourished, and cutting the public sector where it's needed most. The budget is ignorant of regional inequality and indeed will exacerbate the problem, whilst pushing for further inequality in the distribution of wealth, tax breaks for the richer, and sly cuts in services and tax hikes for the poorer. All employers will be better off receiving tax breaks...whilst their workers are paying more and receiving less.

University for the rich, by the rich, of the rich.

Over the course of 13 years, Labour extended the franchise of higher education to everyone.
They improved the quality of teaching and the quality of Primary Schools, Secondary Schools and Colleges. Opening up higher education by increasing the amount of young people entering Sixth Forms and Colleges with new courses whilst improving old ones. But most importantly, Labour opened up universities.
A university degree opens more doors in life than GCSE's or A Levels, in other words, it permeates class boundaries.

David Willetts has expressed today that university fees will rise Considering the average student debt is £22,000 upon leaving university, David Willetts words that students should consider university fees "more as an obligation to pay higher income tax" than a debt, are completely ignorant and misplaced. It is perfectly clear that Condem don't understand students and student struggles, their mummies and daddies paid for their education so I'm sure it must have been a terrible plight for them.

The "Liberal" Democrats come across as little more than weak, whipped liars. They gained votes among students (the student vote is a core section of their vote) on the promise of no tuition fees, so to then say that not only will it take 6 years (which, I should remind you, is longer than the maximum life of the current government) but that they will simply abstain from voting on the issue and let the Tories raise tuition fees shows a complete betrayal of progressive values. The wishy washy liberals strike again.

As a direct result of Labour's actions, more women are attending university than ever before, outnumbering men. University is now seen as the obvious next step for college students, regardless of race, gender, background or household income, as well as now being a viable option with support available for mature students.

What cannot be ignored is the implications of raising tuition fees. Do the Tories really expect people from lower income families and working class backgrounds to foot the bill for university if it's going to be hiked up? The answer - No, they don't.
And that's the point. Raising tuition fees excludes more and more people from university education. In other words, keeping the poor out and the rich in. Labour turned university into a right, and the Tories are turning it back into a privilege, for the privileged. The Tory party are preparing to oversee a return to an income based class system, re-initiating the cycle that stops people young people from low income families from breaking out of low incomes.

Electoral Reform

Well, after a late surge, Diane Abbott did receive the 33 necessary nominations to be a leader candidate, largely thanks to the John McDonnall dropping out of the leadership race last minute and urging his supporters to back Abbott (as well as several high profile MP's such as Jack Straw and David Miliband pledging their nomination to Abbott).

However, what I want to talk about is electoral reform.
Yes, in 1997 there was this 'promise' that electoral reform was on the agenda. And yes, some felt betrayed by Blair's lack of action on this. But if we keep looking at what he didn't do, we forget what we can and must do now. The Liberal Democrats have little choice, even if they decided they no longer wanted electoral reform as their heads swell uncontrollably because for once they're not a complete joke, many of their long term supporters want electoral reform, and they want it now. Lib-Dems are still the smallest party, in seats and membership, so they wouldn't dare risk betraying their supporters.

But what I fear is that they'll settle for scraps from the Tories, and there's no evidence to suggest they'll put up any real resistance to savage right wing policies.
AV is scraps.
When I say electoral reform, I mean a real proportional system, and I mean reform in the house of Lords, reform to factor in new forms of participation, reform on representation.
I want reform on spending, so that no longer does spending mean that Scotland and Southern/middle England receive too much money while the likes of the North and Wales receive far too little.

This kind of reform is unheard of in the Tory ranks, and spoken only in whisper from a brave Lib Dem in the Condem coalition government.
Labour needs to stand tall and commit to reform, regardless of the past and regardless of other parties positions. I want to see a Labour led left wing alliance in government, and a proportional system will nurture the conditions to allow other parties to grow, and not to Labour's detriment, but to Lib-Dem and Tory detriment, because the left's main weakness is it's multitude of divisions.

And when the UK embraces electoral and governmental reform, we can stand in the EU and UN knowing that we're a true democracy, and not a military superpower like the US (I say this because the only reason they are a superpower is their missiles and the ease with which their president can launch them at any time).

Cuts , cuts and cuts! ....same old Tories.

Well, we're just far enough in for the Tories to reveal their actual policies, i.e. not the ones David Cameron talked about.

For those of you who didn't take a look at the budget, it's looking grim. Talk of 'efficiency savings' by lowering public sector jobs equates to freezing employment in the north-East, where 1 in 3 are employed in the public sector. The cuts are harsh and in some cases ruthless (Wales, for example, is already massively underfunded). They say we must all tighten our belts, but cutting regulation in schools is not something parents want to see.

They say something that on the surface sounds good, like they want to give more power back to head teachers, but what they actually do is just take power away from the likes of Ofsted and abolish the General Teaching Council - both of whom keep uniformity in education, trying to keep schools to a good standard. Organisations such as these have been hugely important in Labour's turning education around, for the Tories to now come and unpick Labour's 13 years of hard work.... they can claim they have a mandate to provide change of direction, but not to undo 13 years of progress.

And Academies are the Tories way of cutting state schools without technically cutting education..... The Condem government stated recently (via Michael Gove) that they would not be opposed to the idea of businesses who back the academies making a profit on children's education. This is disgustingly absurd!

After what I said in my last post about how government should not be treated like a business, they are now deciding that children's education is something that can be auctioned off to the highest bidder to try and make money from.

When we talk about investing in children, we didn't mean put them on the stock exchange.

I already disapprove of this privatisation of education ideologically and morally. It is simply wrong, and there are no two ways about it.

So to summarise;

• Condem making cuts sneakily by disguising them -  Same old Tories.
• Privatising education as a way of saving money at the cost of children - Same old Tories.
• Lib-dem ministers whipped by Cameron, or just playing the nodding dog. - Same old Libs.

Government just one big business?

What I see as one of the biggest problems of the right wing and the Conservatives is how they treat government.

Their entire approach feels like it's based on the idea of government as just a large business. That the people of the country are mere commodities to be used 'as efficiently as possible'. Natural resources, foreign policy etc. are all treated as if they are part of this business. And for me this is despicable.
Perhaps the reason the left has traditionally been associated with freedoms, civil liberties and rights is that the left treats government as being the result of the people,. and not the other way around. Democracy isn't those at the top letting 'us at the bottom' in on decision making. Democracy is 'us at the bottom' telling those at the top that actually, we'll rule ourselves thanks.

The idea that a thousand job cuts now will save enough money to create two thousand in three years time is to me completely absurd. Cutting is never good, we all know this. But those thousand people have now lost their jobs, cannot support their families and their only way forward would be to accept much lower paid jobs. What's worse is that under the right wing welfare would be scaled back meaning those one thousand wouldn't receive the support to keep their families afloat - so you've just thrown one thousand people into poverty.
Whether it creates two, three or four thousand more jobs I frankly couldn't give a damn.

People always, always, always come first. This should be at the forefront of every ministers mind. The fact that it isn't, particularly under Gideon and Dave, is a travesty to democracy and representation. We need to remember that trade unions aren't there to slow economic growth, they're there to stop the exploitation of workers. Civil rights activists aren't there to cause a nuisance and political correctness to go 'mad', they're there to give a voice to the silenced minority.

I'm not a fan of Karl Marx in the sense that he focuses far too much on economics. I agree capitalism is the last true evil of our days, the root of most worldly problems, but you cannot assume that politics must follow the route carved out in economics. Instead WE can control the economy; through politics.

This may have been a confusing post, but I'm just trying to say that we have to remember that government is not a business. People are just that, people. They're not a commodity, and can't be treated as such. Government isn't above the people, it is the hand of the people.

Labour Leadership

I have to say, I was favouring Jon Cruddas myself. He seemed like just the right chap to push us leftwards, put a small distance between Labour and Blair, as well as being a candidate who actually had a chance of winning.
But Cruddas announced he isn't going to be standing for leadership and David Miliband has been courting Cruddas' support, which isn't a bad move - Cruddas would have commanded the support of the Trade Unions, and seeing as how they represent 33% of the vote, Davey Miliband would do well to obtain the Trade Union vote.

Out of the main leadership candidates (so I'd say that's frontbenchers like both Milibands and Ed Balls), I find myself favouring David Miliband. I couldn't bring myself to throw my support behind Ed Balls, and of the Milibands, David just seems to be the stronger and more experienced candidate - once Blair's protégé.
And again David stands out on electability. As we've seen from the superficial voters, it matters what you look like, and it matters what front you project, which makes Miliband a viable candidate not just to Labour, but to middle England and the floating voters.

But then Diane Abbott announces her bid for leadership. And you think to yourself  "maybe...maybe she can". We dare to think that maybe Abbott can bring to the Labour leadership exactly what it needs, and maybe she could be that breath of fresh air - Newer Labour? New Older Labour?  Who knows.
But I'm not going to be throwing her a parade just yet. She's up against a lot, and it's not going to be easy.

However, this blog backs Abbot.