The Establishment In Chaos

The Rochester and Strood by-election has thrown the British establishment into a state of panic. The by-election was triggered when Mark Reckless switched from the Tories to UKIP. In yesterday’s election UKIP won 42.1% of the vote whilst the three main parties all lost large percentages of their vote. The Tories lost 14%, Labour 12% and the Lib Dems 16%, for the Lib Dems it was their worst ever result as they lost their deposit, got less than 1% of the vote and finished in fifth, behind the Greens who got 4.2% of the vote.

Obviously this does not bode well for the main parties’ prospects in May. The next General Election could be the most important election in living memory as six parties vie for success. UKIP’s unique ability to attract voters from the three main parties really makes it difficult to understand what will happen at the next election. Although the result in Rochester certainly seems like an earthquake, it doesn't necessitate that similar events will happen in the General Election. Voters act differently in by-elections to Generals, Labour didn’t win any by-elections from the Conservatives from 1997 to 2012, but they still won Generals in 2001 and 2005. A combination of factors are the reason for by-elections looking different to General Elections. Firstly, opposition voters tend to be more motivated to go out and show support for their candidates. Since by-elections have no effect on who forms the government (apart from very rare circumstances), the incumbent party supporters simply are not motivated enough. Most importantly is that supporters of the incumbent party can use by-elections as a way to protest vote. This is certainly part of the reason for UKIP’s success in Rochester & Strood, many people are angry with the Tories and so voted for UKIP to scare them into taking tougher approaches to immigration and the European Union. However in the May election I believe that Rochester will switch back to the Tories.

As a political junkie I am excited by what the implications of May’s General Election will be for years to come. Take a look at the graph and table I created below. As you can see the combined vote of Labour and the Tories has declined over the past 70 years, albeit very slowly. If you include the various incarnations of the Lib Dems, most of the decline disappears. The combined vote of the three main parties has only dipped below 90% on two occasions (2005 and 2010). How this graph changes in 2015 will be fascinating as the Greens, UKIP and the SNP erode support from the main parties.

Now For the Great British Debate

As someone who was always a very staunch no, I am delighted that Scotland has voted to stay in the union. Yet do not believe for a second that this means that questions and issues raised during the campaign will be ignored until the next referendum. I say next referendum as if nothing changes then another referendum will be inevitable, as will a yes result. The referendum has invigorated people, and the demand for change is far too great for politicians across the United Kingdom to ignore. We need a “Great British Debate” on how to reform our country, a debate which involves every part of the country and every political party small or large, not just the big three and the SNP. We must find a way to make British democracy more representative by replacing First Past the Post. We need to federalise the United Kingdom with defined, and equal powers for the parliaments created, including regional parliaments for England. This is the greatest opportunity we have had since the end of WWII to radically reform Britain. Let’s do it.

A new method of voting for MPs

In the 2010 General Election, the Tories won 36.4% of the vote and 47.1% of the seats, labour won 29% of the vote and 39% of the seats, whilst the Liberal Democrats won 23% of the vote yet only 8% of the seats! This is clearly not particularly democratic, but the 2010 General Election was one of the most representative elections we have had! For example; in 2005 Labour won 35.2% of the vote and 55.2% of the seats!

I do not support full proportional representation for a couple of reasons; I believe that it is important to have local representatives that are elected locally, which cannot be done under proportional representation. I also believe that when selecting a government you need to have a balance between democracy and effective government. Having proportional representation frequently leads to reduced government efficiency due to more coalitions of many different parties forming. It also eradicates any chance that independents or regionalist parties will get elected. I believe the best way to balance the interests of democracy with effective government is the d’Hondt method. This is the way we send MEPs to the European Parliament.

I propose merging constituencies into ‘mega constituencies’, which would send around 4 MPs to parliament each. This would mean that you maintain a local representative, have a more democratic system without causing coalitions of half a dozen parties.

Giving votes to 16 and 17 year olds

Another important step forward in democracy would be to give 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote, as they received in the referendum. It is supported by the Liberal Democrats (who had it in their 2010 manifesto) and the Labour Party (Miliband announced the policy during last year’s Labour Party Conference) but opposed by the Conservatives. As a country we have decided that at 16 you are mature enough to leave school, raise a family and join the military. Surely that means we have decided already that they are mature enough to vote.

House of Lords Reform

It is time to get rid of the remaining hereditary peers in the House of Lords altogether, along with the Church of England Bishops. It is also time to make the chamber at least partially elected, to reflect the views of the people of the country. The reason why I do not want a wholly elected House of Lords is because I believe that it can be beneficial to the country to have people who are in Parliament because of their expertise, rather than their electability. Technocracy in moderation is a good thing. Quite what proportion of the House should be elected is up for debate, but I believe it should be no lower than 1/3. However, I do not want the House of Lords to have the power to veto laws, as at the end of the day it should be only the people’s representatives that decide whether or not a law should pass.

Federalising the United Kingdom

This will be the hardest part of the whole process and will require a lot of hard work from every part and party of the United Kingdom. I completely agree with Ed Miliband that we should have a constitutional convention within the United Kingdom some time after next year’s election. Each of the new parliaments should have the same defined powers along a similar line to the states that make up the USA. A great debate should occur over what powers these new parliaments should have. How can they raise taxes or spend money? Should they control their own education systems? What about the NHS and benefits? Since this debate is only just beginning, I do not know exactly where my opinions are just yet. Once I decide on a point of view, I will be sure to inform you!

So involve yourself in the Great British Debate, read up about the different possibilities, write to your local representatives at every level and make sure to change this country for the better!

UKIP in the Ascendancy?

Nigel Farage has called the result an “earthquake in British politics” as his party charges into first place with almost 30% of the vote and 24 seats. Yet is this result, in a European election with a 34% turnout, an indication of the 2015 General Election? The answer: Not if history is anything to go by. Nobody is claiming that UKIP will beat the Tories or Labour in next year’s election, not even the party itself, the question is will it gain any seats, and if so, how many?

Remember back to 2009 when UKIP placed second in the European elections with 16.5% of the vote? Everyone predicted that in the 2010 General Election that UKIP would gain some seats in the House of Commons, especially considering voter hostility to both Labour and the Tories. Well in 2010 UKIP didn’t gain any seats and only received a paltry 3.1% of the vote. Obviously a lot has changed in five years, but I doubt Farage will cause an earthquake when the results of the 2010 election are revealed.

There was some good news though, support for the BNP crumbled into nothing! In the 2009 European elections the BNP managed to gain two MEPs, Nick Griffin in the North West and Andrew Brons in Yorkshire and the Humber. This time around both MEPs were handily defeated.

The Greens had a reasonable night, although their share of the vote actually decreased slightly they managed to gain one seat. This is particularly th

anks to the implosion of the Lib Dems, who slipped into fifth place and lost 10 of their 11 seats. This result, along with their obliteration in the council elections has meant many in Nick Clegg’s own party calling for his head.

Party	Vote	Change	Seats	Change	Pro or anti EU
UKIP	27.49%	+10.99%	24	+11	Anti
Labour	25.40%	+9.67%	20	+7	Pro
Conservative	23.93%	-3.80%	19	-7	Mixed
Greens	7.87%	-0.75%	3	+1	Pro
Liberal Democrats	6.87%	-6.87%	1	-10	Pro
SNP*	2.46%	+0.34%	2	0	Pro
Plaid Cymru*	0.71%	-0.13%	1	0	Pro
BNP	1.14%	-5.10%	0	-2	Anti

*The percentage of the vote is when you take all of Great Britain (not Northern Ireland). In Scotland the SNP got 29% of the vote and in Wales Plaid Cymru got 15%. 

Undoubtedly Eurosceptics did quite well, but the result was not as Eurosceptic as you might have been lead to believe. 42% of people voted for pro-EU parties, 31% for anti-EU parties and 25% on parties that have mixed attitudes to the EU.

Hysteria in the Tory Party

Immigration has been at the centre of British politics for years now. On one side you have cries to close the border totally and on the other to actively increasing immigration. In 2012 517,000 people immigrated to the UK whilst 349,000 emigrated from it, resulting in a net migration of +168,000. Preliminary estimates for 2013 show this rising slightly to 183,000 with 320,000 people leaving and 503,000 arriving. Considering that David Cameron and the Tories promised to curb immigration, this reflects poorly on them with their base.

Part of the problem for the Conservative Party is that they legally cannot do anything to stop people coming from the EU. The only countries that can face restrictions are Bulgaria and Romania who joined the EU in 2007. Unfortunately for the Tories, these restrictions must be lifted following the end of 2013. This is predicted to cause a mild spike in immigration next year. Rising immigration could prove disastrous for the Tories leading into the 2015 election. They are extremely fearful of UKIP whose twin issues are immigration and the EU. The Tories fear that if they do not appear conservative enough on the EU and immigration then UKIP will pull enough votes from them to guarantee a 2015 electoral defeat.

Cue hysteria in the Conservative Party!

David Cameron has announced support for a cap on EU migrants at 75,000 per year! The proposed cap is blatantly illegal and would destroy Britain’s relationship with Europe. Cameron has also proposed changes to benefits which are much more sensible (not to mention legal). New immigrants will not be able to claim benefits for the first three months and benefits will stop after six months if they cannot find a job and have no hope of finding one. 

Gay Marriage Salvaged

Labour has rescued the government's proposal from the Doldrums. The bill has majority in the House of Commons but Tory MP Tim Loughton was determined to go against the will of the majority and added a wrecking amendment. Loughton added a clause which extended civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. The amendment would cause the bill to be held up for several more years. The amendment was a problem as it had the support of the Labour Party as well as many back-bench Conservatives. Earlier last week the Coalition government issued a warning to Labour, claiming that their support for the amendment could result in the whole bill failing.

With the very real chance that they could cause the bill to fail, Labour has pulled support for the amendment and instead will create its own bill in its place. This has thankfully killed the amendment. This should mean that the UK will have passed same-sex marriage by the end of this parliament. It's about time the UK joined the march for LGBT rights. The mother of parliaments must move forward.

____________________________________

In global news, last week was excellent for gay rights as France and Brazil legalised same-sex marriage nationwide! They join New Zealand as well as Minnesota, Rhode Island and Delaware as jurisdictions that have legalised same-sex marriage just this year!

EU Membership at Stake

David Cameron has attempted to quell the rise of UKIP and appease Tory backbenchers by promising en EU referendum in 2017. So why so late? Why not next year? The problem at the moment is that the Conservative Party's coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats, are very pro-EU and will not allow a referendum earlier.

Cameron has proposed a bill that would mean that after the next election in 2015, a Tory government would try and re-negotiate Britain's relationship with Europe. If we don't get the concessions the Tories want an in-out referendum would be triggered in 2017. The major flaw with this is that there may not be a Tory government in 2015, Labour is ahead in the current polls. The Tory Party will not be able to make the law binding as governments aren't allowed to pass laws restricting future governments. The bill will have to be a private members bill as the Lib Dems won't allow it to be coalition policy.

So what has pushed Cameron to propose this bill? The recent success of UKIP will have struck fear into him and he needs the support of his Euro-sceptic back-benchers. It won't have helped that in the last several weeks old beasts of the party such as Nigel Lawson, Norman Lamont and Michael Portillo have called for a referendum as well as cabinet ministers Michael Gove and Philip Hammond.

With the UK's membership of the EU in peril I hope Miliband doesn't back this dangerous bill.

A&E Departments Failing Due to Lack of Funding

The NHS is heading towards a crisis over A&E waiting times as the percentage of people waiting four or more hours to see an emergency doctor has risen to over 4%, the highest in a decade. Cuts to NHS spending has hit the service hard, with more cuts ahead it is unlikely to get better any time soon. (So much for Cameron's campaign slogan "I'll cut the deficit, not the NHS"). Leaked emails reveal that in an effort to help ailing A&Es Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, had planned to plough an extra £300 million - £400 million into the service. According to the emails it had to be abandoned due to problems financing it. The government has denied that Hunt ever proposed such a scheme. Naturally I don't believe the government, especially Hunt, we should all remember how dishonest he was about his relationship with News Corp and Rupert Murdoch!

This government has proven time and time again that they can't be trusted with the NHS, come 2015 we should vote them out of office, if only to protect the sacred cow of British politics.

Local Elections

The political establishment in Westminster has been shaken to its core after UKIP's astonishing night. The results are shown below. (note only the Labour and Conservative Parties have control of councils)

Conservatives: 18 Councils (-10), 1116 councillors (-335)

Labour: 3 Councils (+2), 538 councillors (+291)

Liberal Democrats: 352 councillors (-124)

UKIP: 147 councillors (+139)

Green: 22 councillors (+5)

Other: 22 (no change)

Independents: 165 (+24)

13 councils had no overall control (+8)

The night was terrible for the Tories, losing control of 10 councils and 335 councillors. The Liberal Democrats also had a bad night, losing control of 124 council seats. Together the coalition lost 459 councillors. This is a clear sign from the country that the public does not like their approach to our problems. One of the surprises though was Labour, which expected to do better under the circumstances, perhaps gaining control over more councils. Unfortunately for Labour only a few more seats on councils such as Lancashire would have given them a majority. If you're looking at the results and wondering why Labour didn't beat the Tories overall, you should remember that these are English county councils, Conservative heartlands. Labour strongholds such as Scotland and cities were not voting.

Naturally the big story was UKIP's success in taking many seats, although no councils. The leader, Niger Farage, was delighted with the result but already people are questioning his ability to take seats in a general election. UKIP is still a party of protest and come the next general election you will see a decline in its vote share. The major problem UKIP has is breaking from the idea that they are a one issue party - saying no to Europe. The party will have to hash out policies or people won't take it seriously. The only problem is that once they spell out their policies they will lose all the left wingers who voted for them recently. You should remember that UKIP is more conservative than the Conservatives.

Snoopers Charter Vetoed

Civil liberties groups breathed a sigh of relief yesterday after news broke that Nick Clegg would be effectively vetoing the "snoopers charter". The bill proposed by Home Secretary Theresa May would have given sweeping new powers to the police and intelligence community. It would allow them to log the online data of everyone in the UK, recording what websites we visit, when we visited them, who we message etc.! Many people were horrified by the proposal calling it an affront to civil liberties, Conservative MP Dominic Raab called it "Orwellian".  The refusal of Labour, Lib Dems and many Conservative MPs meant the proposal was dead in the water.

Nick Clegg has rejected the allegation that this was another example of the rift between the two governing parties, pointing out that the proposal had never been in the Coalition Agreement. Yet with the three year anniversary just around the corner, we already can see massive fault-lines between the two parties. Some have actually predicted that the coalition will not last until the next election in 2015! We'll have to wait and see.

Theresa May's bill has been shot down
source: www.guardian.co.uk

Thatcher - The Good, The Bad and the Ugly

Baroness Margaret Thatcher died yesterday aged 87 in the Ritz Hotel, London. With her passing ends the life of a woman who defined British politics for generations to come. That certainly does not mean that she was unanimously liked, certainly not in Britain; she was a bit like Marmite, you either loved her or you loathed her, there wasn’t much of an in-between.

The moment Thatcher took power in 1979 she was faced with serious domestic challenges. She had to deal with the aftermath of the Winter of Discontent and the all-powerful unions who had caused it. Her early years in office were marked by recession, unemployment and high inflation. As a result her popularity dipped to the lowest ever recorded for a British Prime Minister and helped fuel protests and riots against her iron grip. She was sure to lose election in 1983! Yet the signs of an economic recovery, division and a lack of trust in the Labour Party and the Falkland’s War all contributed to her victory. Yet more challenges were waiting for her, most famously the looming conflict with the miner’s union and its leader, Arthur Scargill. The dispute resulted in a massive victory for Thatcher and the power of unions in Britain was decimated. Thatcher engineered the closing of mines, including many that were profitable, which resulted in thousands of jobs being lost and whole communities being devastated. These mines (which were overwhelmingly in the north) were practically the only source of income for many towns and as a result they simply ran out of money. Thatcher is remembered as a tyrant in these areas.

Thatcher’s foreign policy was (and is) more popular than her domestic policy. The Falkland’s War is still considered to have been highly successful and the right thing to do. Her support for Mikhail Gorbachev in the USSR and support for Croatia and Slovenia are seen with hindsight as good policy. Although it wasn’t always so rosy, her refusal to take part in the sanctions against apartheid South Africa and dismissal of the African National Congress as a terrorist organisation did not play well with most people.

Thatcher is not remembered fondly by the nationalist community in Northern Ireland, her refusal to concede concessions to the hunger strikers was met with anger by the community. It took the death of Bobby Sands and nine others to get her to budge, all the while terrorist activity and violence increased. Already a natural target for the Provisional Irish Republican Army (Provisional IRA), this made it all worse, culminating in the assassination attempt at the Conservative Party Conference in 1984. She escaped unharmed.

The major component of ‘Thatcherism’ was always privatisation. Throughout her time in office she privatised numerous state owned corporations. By the time she was ousted in 1990 she had privatised gas, water and electricity as well as British Petroleum (BP), British Telecom (BT) and British Steel. By the end of her time she also supported privatisation of the railways, although that was undertaken by her successor, John Major. The only major one left was the NHS, the sacred cow of British politics. She also massively deregulated the financial sector which is a large part of why London overtook New York as the pre-eminent financial city. Her policy is also a large part of why we had the terrible crash of 2007/2008. Her tax cuts for the wealthy remain in place, but unpopular, when she entered office, the top rate of tax was 83%, which was reduced to 40% by the time she left. Yet her most controversial decision surrounding tax turned out to be the cause of her downfall. The poll tax. The old council tax system was based on the value of your home, the more value had, the more you paid. She didn’t like this system and wanted to replace it with a flat rate, one which everyone paid the same. This was met with outrage across the country as people took to the streets in protest and riots broke out in many cities. The idea that the rich and the poor should pay the same was not a popular one with the British public.

Overall Thatcher’s legacy divides people, she moved the country on a track down the path of Conservatism, a path we are still on. Her dealings with taxes, unions and public corporations can be seen today. Unions are losing power, the top rate of tax is 40% and none of her privatisations have been reversed.  

The Budget

It was more of the same today from Chancellor George Osborne as he announced a new budget in Parliament. He has flat out refused to change course from the abysmal failure of Plan A that has led to this stagnating economy. The British economy is still 3% lower than its pre-crisis level and it is on the verge of triple dip recession. Charting Britain’s economy is starting to resemble a roller coaster rather than an actual graph.

George Osborne looking rather gloomy holding the budget
source: guardian.co.uk

Osborne has put in some small changes into the budget to try and look like less of a nasty chancellor. I don’t think that 1p off a pint of beer is going to coax many people into supporting his failing government. In more depressing news the OBR has reduced their expectation of growth in the UK economy from 1.3% to a measly 0.6%. I wonder when it will get halved again. If that wasn’t enough for the Chancellor, Moody’s has already dropped Britain’s AAA Credit Rating with Fitch and S&P likely to follow.

Yet despite all this austerity, what has Britain got to show for it? Nothing. Borrowing is rising again and the coalition has borrowed more money in three years than Labour did in 13 years.  We’ve been in this crisis now for six years now, I’m starting to really believe that we are heading for a lost generation. A generation in which living standards are actually decreasing until we find someone capable of leading the country into a future that is acceptable. Until that person comes along we’re stuck with Dave, George and Nick. 

Britain Loses its AAA Credit Rating

Britain has joined a host of western nations, which include the USA and France, which have lost their AAA credit rating. Although I don’t care much about the credit rating, to George Osborne it was everything. In the 2010 General Election campaign, Osborne promised the country you could trust the Conservatives with the economy, specifically he said that they would maintain Britain’s AAA rating. Opps. Now that we’ve actually lost the rating, Osborne is pretending that it doesn’t matter to him. It wouldn’t be the first time Osborne has changed his opinion so rapidly, when Labour was carrying out quantitative easing  Osborne said it was a sign of a “desperate” government, he didn’t seem to think so last year when he carried out the exact same policy. The rating downgrade has been described as a humiliation for the government which has put so much emphasis (until now) on our credit rating. For a little historical context, the AAA credit rating has survived the Winter of Discontent, Black Wednesday, the dotcom crash and even the economic disaster of the 2007/2008 recession. Labour has welcomed the news as evidence that the government’s economic plan simply isn’t working and a new one must be thought up quickly and implemented. Despite all the economic indicators to the contrary, the Conservative party seems resolute that there must be little or no change to the austerity program. It’s too early to tell what exactly the effect of the downgrade will be, some economists are predicting that this is the beginning of a ‘spiral effect’; the downgrade will drive up the costs of bonds which will cause the Bank of England to increase inflation which will cause the pound to lose value, this will in turn increase the costs of bonds turning this whole debacle into an economic catastrophe.

Britain was already in a very bad place financially (hence the downgrade), the debt is already very high, and despite all the government’s promises, increasing. The problem with this current government is their policy of austerity to reduce the debt has actually increased the debt and is simultaneously causing economic calamity. Fantastic.

The rating downgrade will be a disaster for both the Conservative’s and Liberal Democrat’s polling numbers, already both parties are very low. Labour is currently leading the Conservative Party by at least 10 points, these polls all taking place before the downgrading. The downgrading will only drive Labour’s lead higher. Although it is still two years away from an election, it is looking increasingly unlikely that the Conservative Party will achieve enough of a comeback to get a majority of seats in the House of Commons in that space of time. Barring any extreme changes over the next two years, the next Prime Minister will be Ed Miliband. 

Victory for Equality!

History was made yesterday when the House of Commons voted 400 – 175 in favour of gay marriage, an overwhelming majority. Despite this, it did not go as well as planned for David Cameron as more Conservative MPs voted against it rather than for it. Here is the breakdown of how the parties voted (note the SNP did not vote as it is a devolved issue and Sinn Fein doesn’t sit in the House of Comons).

Party	Yes	No	Abstained
Conservative	127	136	40
Labour	220	22	16
Liberal Democrat	45	4	7
DUP	0	8	0
Plaid Cymru	3	0	0
SDLP	1	0	2
Alliance	1	0	0
Respect	1	0	0
Green	1	0	0
Independents	1	2	0

The Tory rebels included two cabinet ministers, Owen Patterson the Environment Secretary and David Jones, the Welsh secretary. This is a massive blow to David Cameron’s authority within the Conservative Party, a lot of party members are unhappy about this self-inflicted wound.

Although the bill has not become law yet, when it passes through committee and the House of Lords it will mean that same-sex couples in England and Wales will be allowed to get married. The law will not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland, although in Scotland there are plans to pass it soon. The combined population of England and Wales means that it will become the largest jurisdiction to have passed gay marriage. This means the UK will join 11 other countries (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa and Sweden) as well as subdivisions of Brazil, Mexico and the US. There is still a lot to do for gay rights, although progress is moving quickly in several places. There is discussion about passing gay marriage in several states of Mexico and the US. Gay marriage is likely to be legalised in Andorra, Colombia, Finland, France, Luxembourg, Nepal, New Zealand, Taiwan and Uruguay within the next couple of years.

Unfortunately for gay people, there are worse issues. In most African and Middle Eastern states homosexuality is a punishable offense, sometimes even by death. Gay rights groups need to do more work trying to convince more people in these countries that gay sex is not a sin.

2013 is looking like it could be the best year gay marriage rights have ever had, here’s just a few key dates to watch out for:

12^th of February: France’s National Assembly votes on a same-sex marriage bill (likely to pass)

28^th of February: A Select Committee in New Zealand’s parliament will report on whether a same-sex marriage bill should continue.

April: Uruguay’s Senate will vote on a same-sex marriage bill that has already passed the Chamber of Deputies

Spring: Same-sex marriage will be discussed at Vietnam’s National Assembly

20^th of June: If Colombia’s Congress does not legislate then same-sex marriage will automatically be legalised.  

Triple Dip Recession

The UK is looking increasingly likely to enter into a triple dip recession, the first of its kind in British history. Britain returned to a shrinking economy in the fourth quarter of 2012, another quarter of this will throw Britain back into recession. Unforunately for us a shrinking of 1.5% in the manufacturing sector was the primary reason for Britain's economy shrinking by 1.8% overall. This means that in 2012 the British economy did not grow at all. The increasingly bleak economic outlook is causing some senior Conservatives to break ranks, Boris Johnson has told the government to "junk talk of austerity" and try to stimulate the economy. Yet the government is refusing to budge from its position and refuses to change direction. The government is convinced that they are on the right path, despite all indicators to the contrary. David Cameron and George Osborne are stuck in the false idea that Britain's deficit is the top priority and that austerity must therefore be pursued. Unfortunately this has a negative affect on the economy, combine that with banks and consumers tightening their spending and the whole economy is spiralling downwards. 

Yet the argument that I find most bizarre is the one surrounding credibility. The government claims that if they pursue economic stimulus that they will lose all credibility and government bonds will rise. This is a bizarre argument considering how little economic credibility they have left considering their policies are driving Britain's economy into the ground. All we need to do to prove them wrong is look across the Atlantic to the USA, America pursued economic stimulus under Barack Obama and America's economy is above its pre-crisis level. Not only that, their bond yields are lower than ours and America's budget deficit is shrinking, whereas ours is growing!

The fact is the Labour Party handed the current coalition a growing economy thanks to stimulus, now the government's austerity has forced us into a double (maybe triple) dip recession. Great.

Gay Marriage

Here is a copy of the letter that I will be sending to certain Conservative MPs.

The gay marriage debate has produced many arguments for and against legalisation. I’ve listened to all these arguments and I truly feel that the anti-gay marriage side has no argument based in substance or fact. I hope that after reading this you will see why.

You claim to be ‘protecting the sanctity of marriage’, yet what are you actually ‘protecting’? You say that marriage is an institution that has been around for thousands of years, untouched. The fact of the matter is, many civilisations recognised gay marriage; many Native Americans believed that gay or bisexual people were sacred; Ancient Greece also recognised same sex unions. If we take a look at Christianity then you would be correct in asserting gay couples were never allowed to marry, but you would be empirically wrong to state that marriage has not changed over Christianity’s 2000 years of existence.

Marriage has changed massively over that time, in times gone by a woman had to marry her rapist, Catholic priests were allowed to marry until 1022 and there was no divorce until the 16^th century. Even when divorce was legalised when King Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic Church, women were entitled to nothing the couple owned. In marriage women could be raped and marriage would often take place between a young girl and an old man. In America couples of different races were not allowed to marry and the Ne Temere decree in 1907 allowed Catholic Priests to refuse to marry a Catholic to a non-Catholic. Let’s also not forget that women were once treated as property, a father could sell his daughter to a man he found ‘suitable’. At times if a woman disobeyed her husband she could be punished with death. I would imagine that all of you reading this would agree that divorce should be legal, women shouldn’t have to marry their rapists and that people of different ethnicities should be allowed to marry. Yet you argue that you want marriage to be what it was in Jesus’ day?

I often hear people cite the bible as a reason for banning gay marriage, the book often pointed to is Leviticus and to be specific, chapter 20 verse 13:

“If a man has sexual relations with another man, they have done a disgusting thing, and both shall be put to death. They are responsible for their own death.”

This isn’t just calling homosexuality a sin; it’s calling for the death penalty. Yet who among you would actually pull the trigger, flick the switch or throw the stones to kill a homosexual? Or is that too extreme? Let’s also take a moment to think about what else the bible bans, here’s a short list of things you should not do if you wish to follow the bible to a tee.

Eat or use anything that comes from a pig: Leviticus 11:7-8

Tattoos: Leviticus 19:28

Rounded haircuts: Leviticus 19:27

A man entering a Church with damaged genitals: Deuteronomy 23:1

Psychic readings: Leviticus 19:31

Gossiping: Leviticus 19:16

A wife helping her husband in a fight by grabbing the other mans testicles (it really is that specific) Deuteronomy 25:11-12

Working on the Sabbath: Exodus 31:14-15

Wearing clothes with mixed fabrics: Leviticus 19:19

Eating shellfish: Leviticus 11:10

After I put these points forward many Christians subsequently try and argue that the Old Testament no longer applies, as all the above verses are Old Testament. They say Jesus brought with him a ‘new covenant’ which trumps the Old Testament. Well if it no longer applies, why is it still read out in Church and Sunday School? Why is it still in the bible if it’s not to be obeyed? Regardless there are also things banned in the New Testament that I’m sure you’ve done:

Braided hair and wearing gold: 1 Timothy 2:9

Women simply speaking in Church: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Getting divorced and then marrying again: Mark 10:11-12

Men praying with their head covered: 1 Corinthians 11:4

Women praying without their head covered: 1 Corinthians 11:5

Women shaving or cutting their hair: 1 Corinthians 11:6

Wives not ‘submitting’ to their husband: Ephesians 5:22-23

Homosexuality is also deemed punishable by death in the New Testament, just look to Romans 1:26-32:

“Even the women pervert the natural use of their sex by unnatural acts. In the same way the men give up natural sexual relations with women and burn with passion for each other. Men do shameful things with each other, and as a result bring upon themselves the punishment they deserve for their wrongdoing... They know that God’s law says that people who live in this way deserve death.”

So what do you do with these parts of the bible? Do you ignore the putting to death part and concentrate on the homosexuality as a sin part? If you saw someone wearing a gold ring, you wouldn’t think twice. If you saw a woman speaking in Church, it wouldn’t anger you. So why is homosexuality not an exception?

The fact is you can’t use the bible as a weapon in this crusade against gay marriage, not unless you want to implement new laws banning what I’ve just outlined. Even so, regardless of what your religion tells you, we don’t live in a theocracy. I shouldn’t have to abide by the rules of your religion; if I want to abide by those rules then I will join your religion.

Another argument sometimes made against gay marriage is that opponents don’t want to explain to their little children how two men or two women can love each other. What on earth are you going to explain to them? All you need to do is explain that they love each other. When your kids are older you don’t need to explain to them what sexual relations between two same sex couples entail. Just like you won’t explain exactly what happens between two couples of the opposite sex, other than a brief overview of how to make children.

Some of you say that gay marriage will destroy the family unit, this I find it hard to make a counter-argument for. Simply because I can’t comprehend what you can possibly mean by this. Will gay marriage somehow make your marriage less worthwhile, will love start to seep from your relationship with your family? No. So how on earth will it destroy the family? It will allow kids with same sex parents to grow up knowing their family is being treated the same as everybody else. Allowing gay marriage doesn’t bring straight marriages down; it raises same sex couples to the same level as straight couples.

Destroying the family unit isn’t the only ‘argument’ against gay marriage that simply doesn’t make sense. If you argue that marriage is all about procreation then I can only assume that you’ll be fighting for a law that requires all couples wishing to get married to undergo fertility tests. If you turn out to be infertile then you’ll be banned from marrying, after all marriage is only about procreation. As a side note, Earth’s population is over 7 billion; we’re not near extinction, so procreation isn’t really society’s top priority.

Another non-sense argument commonly made is that gay parents will produce gay kids. Exactly, just like straight parents always produce straight kids.  

So far I have concentrated solely on the argument for gay marriage, now I’m going to turn my attention to the politics of the situation. I have heard many Conservative MPs shout loud about how the government doesn’t have a mandate to legalise gay marriage! After all, it was not in the manifesto, the party did not campaign on the issue and it was not in the coalition agreement. You see the thing is, gay marriage has massive support in the United Kingdom. According to an IPSOS-MORI poll published on the 11^th of December 2012, 73% of British people support gay marriage; considering it is even higher amongst youth indicates that this is only going to rise. If support from 73% of the public isn’t a mandate – then I don’t know what is. I would like to remind you that this isn’t the only issue on which the government position is controversial; after all Nick Clegg did sign a pledge not to raise tuition fees. There is another bill, even less popular than the tuition fee rise, that has passed the House of Commons; the Health and Social Care Bill. Not only was it missing from the Conservative Party manifesto, David Cameron and the Conservative Party actively campaigned against any more “top down reorganisations of the NHS”, yet once you’re in government you pass the biggest reform of the NHS in its history. Not only that, the bill was extremely unpopular from the start, registering polling figures as low as 8%. So there was no mandate from the voters in 2010 and no mandate from opinion polls when the bill passed, yet you still passed it. If you are a Conservative MP who voted for the Health and Social Care Bill and your argument against passing gay marriage is that there is no mandate for it. Then you are a massive hypocrite, you cannot use that to back your position.

So what are you left with now? History is on my side, marriage has been revised constantly. Turning to the bible makes no sense unless you want new, bonkers, laws. Saying it destroys the family makes no sense. Finally you turn to the idea of a mandate; but if you voted to pass the Health and Social Care Bill, you are a joke.

I hope you will think about this before deciding on what your vote should be – make history and vote yes.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Spence – British citizen

Leveson and the Press

After it was revealed in 2011 just how badly the British press behaves, the government called an inquiry into what had happened and what to do to prevent future bad behaviour. Lord Justice Leveson chaired the inquiry in which he listened to hundreds of witnesses, which included politicians, TV presenters, journalists, celebrities and ordinary civilians affected by the extreme behaviour of the press.

The report which was published at the end of November called for a new body to replace the Press Complaints Commission. The new body would be independent of both government and the press and would have the ability to fine companies that break the law up to £1 million. It should be noted that this would only apply to large organisations, not Twitter users or bloggers like myself.

The reaction to the report was not that surprising, nearly the entire press agreed with the Prime Minister, David Cameron’s, position that legislation should not follow as Leveson advised. The only exception was the Guardian which backed Ed Miliband’s approach of calling for full implementation of the Leveson Inquiry’s recommendations. J.K. Rowling and Gerry McCann both made statements expressing thing frustration at the PM, they felt as though they had been miss-led. Private Eye, which was actually praised in the report, complained that they proposed system would force them into joining the regulator despite good behaviour previously.

 This is a once in a generation chance to reign in the extremities of the press without damaging the all important freedom of the press. We must realise that too many people have had their lives torn apart by the excesses of the press and that this must stop. Labour is going to bring a vote in the House of Commons, which they will likely win thanks to rebelling Tories and Liberal Democrats, but unfortunately Labour does not have the ability to create laws and as such it will not actually go into law. This is quite disappointing, as the majority of the country backs the Leveson report.

UK Elections

The 2012 UK elections were nothing out of the ordinary, there was no general election so no change of government. Yet there were still important elections, in May council elections were held across England, Scotland and Wales as well as several mayoral elections and the London Assembly. The election went fantastically for Labour, which was somewhat expected as opposition parties tend to do well in mid-term elections.

Labour received 38% of the vote to the Conservative’s 31% and the Liberal Democrat’s 16%. This meant that Labour gained 823 councillors and 32 councils whilst the Conservatives lost 405 councillors and 12 councils and the Lib Dems lost 336 councillors and one council. It is important to note that Labour gained quite a few councils that previously had no overall control. In London things were different, Boris Johnson won re-election, making him the only Conservative success of the election. Johnson won about 50,000 more votes than Labour’s Ken Livingstone in the final count. The London Assembly was more in line with the rest of the country as Labour gained at the expense of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. In the Assembly Elections the Green Party did well, replacing the Lib Dems in third place after receiving around 40,000 more votes than them.

In November elections were held for Police and Crime Commissioners across England and Wales, as in these elections people did not vote on party lines, independents did extremely well. Off the 41 PCC positions available, independents won 12, Labour 13 and the Conservatives 16 (despite receiving 250,000 fewer votes). The Liberal Democrats got nothing.

Overall the 2012 elections were very good for Labour, polls show that as the year closes Labour has a 10-15 point lead over the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are losing third place to UKIP. The next general election will not occur until 2015 so there is plenty of time for things to change. If we keep on track we could have a Prime Minister Ed Miliband. 

Massive Rifts Opening Up in Tory Ranks

The current coalition government of the United Kingdom is known to be divided, which is to be expected as there are two different parties in power. We know there are rifts between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives over social and economic policies, but what is usually less visible is the rift within the Conservative Party.

The rift in the Conservative Party is quite surprising considering that it was only two years ago in which they placed first in a general election. Most people would expect, at this stage, for the Labour Party to be rife with divisions and the Conservatives to be putting on a united front. Yet the Tory Party has shown time and time again that there are massive divisions in the party that are threatening to tear the party apart. HS2, the high speed rail link between London and cities in the north of England has angered a lot of the Tory MPs from the rural regions through which the new route will pass. There are also large divisions over the possibility of building a third runway at Heathrow Airport. Europe has always been a headache for Tory Party leaders, David Cameron is no exception. Many within the party demand a referendum on whether or not to stay in the European Union, much of the party is euro-sceptic and would rather we leave the EU altogether.

The most recent issue to create a colossal divide within the Conservative Party is that over gay marriage, the proposals have been supported by Cameron and much of his cabinet ministers for many years. The proposals also have support of the ascendant Boris Johnson and both the opposing parties. Yet there is increasing anger amongst many Tory backbenchers who are opposed to gay marriage and believe that the government has no mandate to pass it since it was not in the Tory Party manifesto or the coalition agreement. (I don’t see how 70%-80% public support for a policy isn’t a mandate)

All this makes things very difficult for the government, there are rifts opening up everywhere and over every issue. If the coalition survives until the 2015 general election I will be very impressed and very surprised. 

Plebgate Scandal Returns

It was supposed to have been largely wrapped up when Andrew Mitchell resigned as government chief Whip but this week the ‘plebgate’ scandal has taken a new turn. A police officer has been arrested over allegations that he submitted false evidence, the officer claimed that he was a member of the public that was passing by the gate to Downing Street when he heard the row between police and Mitchell. He claimed that he heard Mitchell use the word pleb – an allegation that Mitchell has always denied. He claims that he was with a group of tourists who were shocked at the way the chief whip spoke to police. CCTV footage has now emerged that there was nobody near the gate at the time of the incident, never mind a crowd.

This all was naturally welcomed by Mitchell and his supporters who now see the tide of public opinion turning in Mitchell’s favour. Mitchell and his allies are also furious at the Police Federation who in the weeks following Mitchell’s confrontation appeared to use the plebgate scandal as a way to get revenge on the government for police cuts and changes to their pay and conditions.

Although we will never know for certain whether Mitchell used the world pleb, two officers who were definitely present accuse him of using that word whereas Mitchell denies it. This is still a very serious allegation, the officer in question will almost certainly lose his job and there may be others within the force who will have to leave. 

Leveson Report

In a move that has angered much of the public, the Prime Minister David Cameron had rejected proposals put forward by Lord Justice Leveson. To make matters worse for Cameron, he looks set to experience another humiliating defeat in the House of Commons as Labour will force a vote on the proposals. The vote should get the support of most of Labour and the Liberal Democrats as well as about 70 Conservative backbenchers. Unfortunately the vote will be non-binding as Labour does not have the power to introduce legislation.

So what is in the report causing such political angst? Well basically, Leveson calls for the setting up of a regulatory body that would be independent of both government and industry with the ability to fine organisations up to £1 million! The report castigates much of the press for their activities Leveson wrote that they have "wreaked havoc on the lives of ordinary people." Throughout the months that Leveson was listening to hundreds of testimonies, there were a number of specific stories that stood out. When Joanna Yates disappeared in 2010 her landlord, Christopher Jefferies was, in Leveson's words "the victim of a very serious injustice perpetrated by a significant section of the press". Leveson described the hunger of news organisations for stories on Madeleine McCann and her family as "insatiable." In most people's minds, it was the revelation that Milly Dowler, a murdered schoolgirl, had had her phone hacked by News of the World that started the avalanche of public anger that led to the Leveson inquiry. In July last year it seemed that barely a day went past when more people weren't added to the list of hackees. The families of 9/11 and 7/7 victims were hacked as well as those of dead soldiers and murder victims. The public revolution for the tabloids grew everyday.

The report was also critical of Jeremy Hunt and his handling of the BSkyB takeover bid. Hunt was at the centre of wider criticism of politicians' closeness to the press, particularly Murdoch titles. Leveson said that the huge amount of contact between Hunt's special advisor Adam Smith and News Corp lobbyist, Frédérick Michel was a serious problem that Hunt failed to address. Yet overall politicians were not heavily criticised notably Leveson cleared the government of being unfairly influenced by News Corp during the BSkyB takeover bid.

What happens in the next couple of moths will be of paramount importance to the nature of our press for the next generation. Parliament has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to stop the unethical and unnecessary excesses of the British press without harming free speech and with the support of the public. If Cameron rejects the idea, it will only be a matter of time until the 2011 press scandal returns in a new form.