Osborne: "Turning a Corner" or Turning an Eye on Society??

George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said in a speech today that the economy is “turning a corner”. Now, people who know me, know that I’m not a big supporter of the current Tory government, but the way that Mr Osborne is touting this story really takes the biscuit. In London, this morning, he said that there were “tentative signs of a balanced, broad based and sustainable recovery”. About time...! We’ve now had this Conservative theory of austerity and budget costs for the last three and a half years, and we’re only starting to see signs of recovery!

 

Looking at the GDP growth figures per quarter, during the time that the Conservatives have been in power, there have been six quarters of growth and four quarters in which the economy shrank. Now, admittedly, a lot of the financial trouble that we have been in has been due to the recession in the Eurozone (i.e. the countries who use the Euro as their currency), but other EU countries have weathered the storm better than the UK. Germany, for example, has fared better, as well as other, lesser European nations, such as Estonia.

 

But, and this is my key gripe with economists, many only care about the figures on the page. Whilst growth figures look good in news reports, can anyone really honestly say that living standards are better than they were in 2010, when this Conservative government took power? Food prices are on the increase, energy bills are on the increase and more and more families are struggling to make ends meet. But, I’m sure that come Spring 2015, when the campaigning for the General Election is well under way, that the Conservatives will wheel out the growth statistics, saying that “look at our GDP figures! We’re helping people!”, even though more people may be living in poverty than before.

 

My final problem with George Osborne’s speech this morning was his boasting statement that “those in favour of a Plan B have lost the argument”. This is clearly rubbish. It took three-and-a-half years for any real, sustained improvement in the figures. In the UK, quarterly GDP growth has not been above 1% since Q3 2007 (July-September 2007), showing that whilst the UK economy has “turned a corner”, it’s hardly a fantastic recovery. Whose is it to say that if Ed Balls was running the economy, we would have favoured any better (or indeed worse)? No-one - we will never know. So Mr Osborne cannot, and should not, state that his plan was better than any other plan, because there is no way of knowing. All that should matter is the question of whether living standards (because that’s all that important) are better or worse than they were in 2010 with the Coalition came together. If it is better, then it has been a success, if not, then they have been a failure.

 

We can all stand up at the front of the class (or a press conference) and read out a list of figures, saying, “look, everything is better now!”, but the real people who know whether the Coalition have made living easier and better for them, or worse for them. And they hold the key at the next general election in 2015.

 

Syria: Is there a "right" solution?

I've been wanting to do a post on Syria for almost as long as it's been in the news, but until now, I never really came to a judgement on whether we should intervene. And, to cut a long story short, I still haven't reached a verdict. It's all very murky. Did the president of Syria, President Assad, use chemical weapons on people protesting against his presidency? Or did the so-called terrorists (in Assad's words) launch the attack against the government forces? There is little doubt that there was a chemical attack on the outskirts of Damascus, killing "hundreds of people" (according to the BBC), and US President Barack Obama has previously stated that any attack by chemical weapons is a "red line" that should not be crossed. The United Nations is unlikely to sanction military involvement with Russia and China on the Security Council, allowing both countries to veto any resolution, leaving individual countries to decide on their course of action. The UK Parliament voted on the prospect of military action (interestingly, before UN inspectors, sent to investigate who attacked who, returned with their report) and said that the UK should not get involved militarily. And it's not just Parliament who are against military intervention. The public also want to stay out of the Syria crisis. According to a YouGov poll, just under three-quarters of people agreed with Parliament that the UK should stay out of any military attacks on Syria, and less than half agree that if there were further chemical attacks, the UK should launch missiles against the Assad regime. It seems the UK is now reluctant to charge straight in to military action in the name of "justice". But why?

Well, firstly, I think the recent memories of Iraq and Afghanistan plague our minds. The deaths of our servicemen and women in these two regions (179 and 444 respectively), with relatively little achieved, has made us reluctant to enter into new conflicts. Also, public opinion suggests that the Government should try to fix the problems here (specifically the economy and immigration) before trying to fix problems elsewhere in the world, especially as we don't have any money to spend. Even though David Cameron and Barack Obama have both ruled out putting "boots on the ground" (i.e. sending soldiers in), clearly the public is worried that one thing could lead to another, resulting in a full-scale army invasion of the region. In addition, any military action would certainly raise tensions between whoever launched an attack (probably the US and/or France) and Russia and China. At a time where US-Russian relations are tense because of the Edward Snowdon case, the US may not want to antagonise the Russians any more than they have done. 

The judgement on whether the UK is "right" to stay out of the crisis will depend heavily on hindsight. If, as in the case of inaction over Rwanda in 1994, the killings continue, and the rest of the world continues doing nothing, or continues to offer aid, but no firm resistance, then it will turn from a civil war in to a genocide. But, if there is intervention, and that intervention is vague and unplanned, then, as in Somalia after the UN-led intervention in 1992, the country is likely to continue a downward spiral in to becoming a failed state. 

There is also a big debate over what is morally "right". Should, as the West argues, the citizens of a country be free from oppression and violent abuse? Or, as Russia and China argue, should a country be able to do anything it likes to it's citizens within it's own borders? This difference of opinion has dominated global politics since the end of the Cold War, and even before then. Cases such as human rights abuses in North Korea, nuclear weapons development in Iran and enforcing no-fly zones over Libya have led to many disagreements between the main powerhouses of international politics. 

I suppose that the only "right" way to deal with Syria is to convince representatives of both the Syrian regime and the rebels to the negotiating table, to try to hash out a peace deal, but as Kofi Annan (former UN Secretary-General) has already tried this route with his failed six-point-peace-plan, there doesn't seem much hope of a diplomatic solution. 

So, what is the "right" solution? I don't know. There doesn't seem to be one. In this situation, it seems like you can't please all of the people all of the time. As I said previously, a lot will depend on hindsight. If it is revealed that there have been more chemical attacks, there will no doubt be more calls to intervene militarily, or if there is a reduction in civilian deaths, then the decision not to intervene would have been the right one. Only time will tell. 

Cameron: A Man with a Van (with a slogan)

Firstly, I must start off with an apology. I haven't been writing as much as I planned to recently, because I've been away for a few days. Hopefully, I'll be able to write more in the coming weeks and months. Anyway, moving on...

Last week saw large billboard van commissioned by the Home Office warning illegal immigrants to "Go home or face arrest". These vans were trialled in six London boroughs (Ealing, Brent, Hounslow, Redbridge, Barking and Dagenham), not notorious for illegal immigrants. So, what is the motivation behind this campaign?

The slogan could be interpreted in a way that isolates legal immigrants who have a right to live and work here, and could lead to an increase in racially aggravated attacks on ethnic minorities. Whilst this hasn't been proven, or any suggestion of it being made in the national press, it is still worth considering. Likewise, the billboards did make it clear they were targeting illegal immigrants, rather than those legally living in the UK. But, the way that the media has grabbed hold of the story, focussing on the "Go home or face arrest" aspect rather than the illegal immigrant part.

Another motivation of this campaign could be a massive publicity stunt. After the Conservatives' huge failure at the local elections in May 2013, losing 335 councillors (that's 23% of the number held before the elections), mostly to UKIP - perceived to be stronger on immigration - David Cameron wanted his Party to be seen to take a strong stance against UKIP, and against immigration. Reading an article in The Guardian, only a couple of people had seen these moving billboards around the six London boroughs. So, maybe the announcement was only for big publicity, to be seen as been tough on immigration.

This is what I don't like about David Cameron. He always seems to jump on the bandwagon whenever it comes to the major policy areas that matters to the people. He does this whenever it comes to Prime Minister's Questions and he is questioned about the flat-lining economy, he instead turns his blame on Labour saying "Labour got us in to this mess" (I'm assuming that he's just practicing his election campaign motto for 2015!). He jumped on the bandwagon with the Queen's Diamond Jubilee and the London Olympics last year, Andy Murray's Wimbledon success and the birth of the Royal Baby, Prince George this year, and will continue to do so whilst distracting the public's attention from the poor economic state that neither he, nor George Osborne, has helped in his last three years. But, I'm sure come 2015, David Cameron won't care. He'll still say "Don't vote Labour, we'll go back to the mess of 2010!" rather than actually offering a viable alternative! In fairness, Labour aren't much better, as they haven't even suggested an alternative either, but come 2015, Labour should show their cards and their policies.

So, hopefully, the public will see through these vans and these slogans, as either a "call to arms" against illegal immigrants, or as a publicity stunt to show that they aren't going to roll over against UKIP's sudden rise to popularity. Either way, Cameron's jumping again!!

Nigel Farage: All Voice and No Ideas?

Yesterday morning, I heard Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) being interviewed by Victoria Derbyshire on BBC Radio 5Live (the programme of which is available to listen to on the BBC iPlayer website). Thinking that it was strange for the leader of what has been considered as a protest party appearing on big-time radio, I listened closely, assuming what I believe most people think: that UKIP is a far-right party, which differs from the British Nazi National Party only by being a little less racist. But listening to Farage more and more, it started to dawn on me that this man could perform in confrontational interviews. Victoria Derbyshire wasn't one to sit on the fence, and attacked Farage on his economic policies, claiming they don't add up, but Farage vehemently defended his policies. I haven't heard much from Farage (I'm not one who supports right-wing politics), other than Farage's own attack on the President of the European Union, Herman van Rompuy (well worth a look on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dranqFntNgo), but after the discussion on the radio this morning, where he also fielded questions from callers, I think he came out rather well.

He has energy that both David Cameron and Ed Miliband lack (imagine him laying into either the PM or the Leader of the Opposition at Prime Ministers Questions!), and even if his political beliefs leave a lot to be desired, as a political character, I can see a lot of people voting for him, even if it as a so-called "protest vote" against the Big Three of the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats. This was obvious in the May 2013 Council Elections, where in previous Local Elections, UKIP have done poorly (admittedly, because few UKIP councillors stood for election), but this time round, they won 147 council seats, up from the 8 they had from those councils last time they were up for election (which was 2009, incidentally). This gain of 1737% is a huge jump on four years ago, and is the best result for a party outside of the Big Three since the Second World War.

The problem that faces the so-called "clowns", "loonies" and "fruit-cakes" as David Cameron and other members of his Cabinet have described UKIP, is the public perception of themselves. People see them as closet-racists, convinced that if they come to power, UKIP will force out anyone who does not fit the criteria of being "British": i.e. white, middle-class, born in Britain, like cricket, drink tea etc. If UKIP have any chance of gaining power, Middle England is unlikely to vote for them, for the same reason people don't vote for the BNP: perceived racism is bad. So, I suppose the real reason why Nigel Farage appeared on prime-time radio yesterday morning was to try to dispel that very label. To show people that they are a viable party which is legitimate, and not just the protest vote that the Lib Dems were before they got in to coalition with the Conservatives. I think a lot will depend on the next two years. If the economy is in a significantly better state than it is now, or if Ed Miliband becomes a stronger leader than he is now, and rebrands himself to appeal to voters, then UKIP's influence in 2015 will be little, if not none. If, however, the economy continues to flat-line, and Miliband continues to be the weak leader, both of the Labour Party and at PMQs, then Nigel Farage's party may have influence in the form of a couple of seats in the House of Commons. A lot, it seems, rests on the next two years. Farage may find he has a voice after all.