Media Moguls and Tabloid Tattlers: A Guide to the UK Press

  The British press is a venerable and revered institution, championing the public interest with an incessant determination to root out truth and expose corruption wherever it may be found. 

  Except, of course, it isn't. It is, to be blunt, a seething, vested-interest-ridden cacophony of noise; a slew of papers and jumped-up magazines all vying to make as much money as humanly possible whilst putting out their own political and social agenda forward, often in bald denial of objective fact. Let's take a look at the major players and analyse just what it is that makes these people tick. I'll start with the tabloids, for no other reason than to get as much of the real vitriol out of the way early on.

The Sun/The Sun on Sunday
  Archetypal British tabloid, The Sun is owned by a subsidiary of News Corporation. That means Murdoch, ladies and gents. As such, the paper's political affiliation is somewhat fluid - it follows, in essence, the preferences of Rupert Murdoch himself at any given election. It supported Labour until 1979, when it came out for the radically rightist Thatcher-led Conservative Party. It carried on as an ardent fan of the Iron Lady right until the end, and lent its support to her successor John Major as well at first. However, in 1997 the paper swung back to Labour, before returning once more to the Tory fold in 2009. The Sun is typical of the tabloid media - sensationalist, frequently offensive and constantly the target of libel cases and other scandals. It should also be remembered that its sister paper, The News of the World, was closed down as a result of the appalling phone-hacking scandal in 2011. This is a paper stuffed full of sex, gossip and tasteless humour, with very little to recommend it - unless you like insidious right-wing propaganda disguised as cheap entertainment, of course. My verdict: Avoid like the plague

The Daily Mirror/The Sunday Mirror
  Older than The Sun, and responsible for creating many of the tropes of the tabloid genre,The Daily Mirror is essentially the left-wing equivalent of The Sun. It has backed the Labour Party consistently since the end of the Second World War. Owned by Trinity Mirror, the UK's largest newspaper group, The Mirror is sensationalist and, like most tabloids, has a very low text-to-image ratio. Its own brand of humour is scarcely more palatable than The Sun's and it too has been afflicted by libel cases aplenty. But at least it's not owned by Murdoch. 
My verdict: Avoid if at all possible

The Daily Star/The Daily Star Sunday
  The Daily Star is a relatively new tabloid, first published in 1978. It keeps largely out of politics, but has on occasion voiced support for right-wing and far-right organisations - most notably the EDL in 2011. This 'paper' is concerned primarily with celebrity gossip and sports news - with the obligatory naked model thrown in. It is owned by Northern & Shell, which also owns The Express. 
My verdict: Avoid, for no other reason that it contains NO NEWS

The Morning Star
  The most left-wing national newspaper by quite some distance, The Morning Star is owned by the People's Press Printing Society, a cooperative group with strong connections to the Communist Party of Britain. It advocates very strongly the socialist programme of the CPB, though it supported Labour at the 2010 general election on the pragmatic basis that the CPB was highly unlikely to win any seats, and is a supporter of the trade unions. 
My verdict: Worth a read, but VERY biased

  That's the traditional red-tops dealt with - the tabloids that accept they are tabloids, and move on. The next two are sadly in denial as to their tabloid status, and insist on masquerading as broadsheets. All the more reason to lay into them!

The Daily Mail/The Mail on Sunday
  Anyone who knows me will know that my dislike for this particular rag is legendary. Owned by DMGT, Lord Rothermere's media company, The Mail is a firmly right-wing paper and consistently supports the Conservative Party, though it has sympathies for UKIP. The paper is highly critical of the BBC, immigration, the welfare state, the Labour Party, the EU and just about everything else that doesn't date back to at least the 1850s. Having felt the wrath of libel scandals as much as its red-top cousins, and using as it does the same sensationalist headlining styles as they do, it is quite clear that this paper is no broadsheet, and it does not hide its overt bias. 
My verdict: Avoid if you have any spark of human decency within you

The Daily Express/The Sunday Express
  As I mentioned earlier, The Express is owned by Richard Desmond's Northern & Shell and subscribes to pretty much the same right-wing stance as The Mail. It supported Labour in 2001, but the Tories in every other election since 1945. It is also very Eurosceptic, launching a 'crusade for freedom' campaign in 2011 aimed at persuading David Cameron to withdraw the UK from the EU. It is also famously obsessed with Princess Diana, particularly with regards to conspiracy theories surrounding her death, which seem to be a weekly feature. 
My verdict: Avoid. Please

  Huzzah! That's the tabloids done with! Thank Osiris for that... Even writing about that lot exhausts me. Fortunately, the UK's crop of broadsheet newspapers are actually not too awful. Don't worry, though - I've enough residual anger left to pick out their flaws with joyous abandon!


The Times/The Sunday Times
  I thought I'd start with this one, seeing as I dislike it the most. The reason for that is basically because its another of Murdoch's ventures, and that man has FAR too much power over the British (and Australian) media. In fact, I might even write a whole post about it... But I digress. The Times has been going since 1785, so it's got a fairly decent pedigree. Its political allegiance has mainly been Tory, apart from a brief fling with Blair's New Labour in 2001 and 2005. News content in The Times is usually good, with little bias - although subtle right-wing phrasing can sometimes be discerned; the paper has on several occasions referred to persons accused of terrorism as 'terrorists' without any trial having taken place, for example. My verdict: Readable, but avoid if possible to annoy Murdoch

The Financial Times
  The Financial Times is politically relatively centrist, but it subscribes to neoliberal economic theory and thus has an implied tendency towards the right. Focused on business and economics, it nevertheless provides adequate coverage of most major news topics and is unbiased on non-economic matters. Its political support varies - most recently it endorsed the Liberal Democrats, but it has supported all three major UK parties in the past. Being an international paper, it also supports Obama's Democrat administration in the USA. The Financial Times is owned by Pearson, the largest publishing company in the world. 
My verdict: Tough going at times but readable

The Daily Telegraph/The Sunday Telegraph
  The Telegraph is a centre-right paper, owned by the Barclay Brother's Press Holdings company. It consistently supports the Conservative party and takes a socially conservative, economically liberal position on most issues. Responsible for the bringing to light of the MPs' expenses scandal in 2009, it nonetheless generally favours the status quo. Its right-wing bias is obvious and it it can be justifiably accused of being elitist. Its sports editor is evidently a cricket fan.
My verdict: Decent paper provided you factor in its right-wing bias

The Guardian/The Observer
  The Guardian and its sister paper are the papers of the liberal centre-left. Among their more radical opinions is support for the abolition of the monarchy - generally, however, they remain firmly the province of middle-class leftism. Usually Labour-supporting, they favoured the Liberal Democrats at the last general election. Their news coverage is relatively unbiased, although a clear liberal slant on many issues is discernible and their opposition to UKIP is made very clear. Owned by the Scott Trust, The Guardian and The Observer are lauded for their commitment to ethical practices - but lambasted for their famously shocking grammar and spelling. 
My verdict: My favourite paper; Excellent, again provided the bias is factored in

The Independent/The Independent on Sunday
  There's not a great deal to say about The Independent - it does what it says on the tin. It does not support any political party and its comment sections play host to a wide range of views. Part of the growing media empire of Russian business man Alexander Lebedev, The Independent is generally centre-left on social issues and centre-right on economic questions, placing it pretty much in the centre of public opinion in the UK.
My verdict: Excellent paper with varied opinion pieces

  So, there we are. That's a quick lowdown on the biggest names in the British press right now. Honourable mentions must go to left-wing comment magazine the New Statesman and its right-wing equivalent the Spectator, both of which are worth a read, as well as The Huffington Post online newspaper, which presents news and comment in easily digestible formats. I hope this has been of some use to you, or - failing that - at least some entertainment.

  And please, for the love of all that is good and pure in the world, don't read The Daily Mail...

Europe 2014 - UKIP Rising

Source: UK Polling Report

  In my last post I commented at length about the increasing popularity of UKIP, with particular reference to the upcoming European Parliament Election. Well, UKIP have now overtaken Labour as no.1 party in the pre-election polls for the second time this year, as the graph above shows. The first thing to say about this is that it is by no means conclusive - Labour could quite easily swing back into first place again, and it would not be at all surprising if the two parties switched positions several times between now and the 22nd of May.

  That said, though, it doesn't spell fantastic news for the political mainstream. Taking a look at the wider trends, it would appear that the fluctuating-but-steadily-rising level of support for the far-right party have not been overly damaged by the latest spate of scandals. And they've been particularly bad this time around, including a UKIP candidate telling Lenny Henry to 'emigrate to a black country' and one of the handpicked stars of their first EU election broadcast, Andre Lampitt, launching a tirade of disgusting online abuse, of which perhaps the most shocking example was the claim that 'slavery was an act of war' and that 'you lost stop being so damn jealous and move forward'.

  The fact that BNP leader Nick Griffin defended these comments should really speak for itself.

  So, if Farage and his party can not only withstand negative publicity on this level but actually make political gains whilst it is going on, questions surely have to be asked about just what can stop them. The inexorable rise of the Eurosceptics across Europe poses perhaps the biggest threat to a united, strong and prosperous Europe - and UKIP are no exception. Indeed, their gloss of respectability which groups like Le Pen's Front National and the BNP themselves have been unable to acquire, despite considerable popular support, makes them perhaps the most dangerous threat to the EU of all.

  But perhaps it's not all doom and gloom. Another clear trend revealed by the graph is the improving fortunes of the Green Party. This is not entirely inexplicable - the Greens not only have a eurosceptic streak to them, albeit not nearly so pronounced as UKIP's, but they also represent the same anti-establishment sentiments the 'kippers do. In addition, and most critically, their policies actually make sense and don't include a flat rate of tax - a policy which would spell doom for the working poor and set the upper-middle classes and landed gentry rubbing their hands together with glee.

  To sum up: UKIP are on the rise, the 'big three' have taken a hit and the Greens - challenging the Lib Dems now for fourth place - are set to do better than ever. Something to think about, at any rate.



POSTSCRIPT
This is entirely unrelated but very interesting. No-one else seems to have picked up on this, but yesterday on the Andrew Marr show, this little exchange was heard:

     ANDREW MARR: 
          And you’re going to get Boris back in the House of Commons to lead you.  
     JEREMY HUNT: 
          Well that would be wonderful

Freudian slip, perhaps? Time will tell... Meanwhile, Cameron had better watch out...

Europe 2014 - The Countdown Begins

  Yesterday marked a landmark in the run-up to the European Parliament elections - the one-month-to-go mark, and the beginning of the official campaigning season. On the 22nd of May, the 508 million people of the EU's 28 Member States will choose their representatives in the world's only directly elected supranational legislature.

  It's a big moment. It has been five years since the last chance the European people had to make this decision, and it's safe to say that quite a bit has changed. The economic situation has improved - but crucially, nowhere near as much or as quickly as predicted. The balance of power in the European Parliament currently favours the European People's Party - the alliance of the Christian, conservative centre-right. That could be all about to change.

  The dynamic in Europe has shifted since 2009. The prevailing wisdom of that time was austerity - cuts, cuts, cuts in public expenditure in a desperate attempt to bring the economic crisis under control. Five years on, austerity has had mixed success. Whilst it appears to have brought the immediate crisis under control, the wider economic problems of the continent have not been addressed and the economy of Europe is stagnating.

  The effect of this disillusionment with the centre-right political mainstream has been a lurch to more extreme politics. The far-right are on the rise, and the leaders of the established political forces of the continent are worried. As well they might be. 

  In France, Marine Le Pen and her Front National have become the third-largest political force in the country. In the Netherlands, it is Geert Wilders and his Party for Freedom which has claimed the right-wing platform, its anti-immigration policies appealing to many in this time of economic turmoil. These groups are fast becoming powers in the emerging landscape of European politics, and look set to claim a considerable number of seats at the forthcoming elections.

  Wilders and Le Pen represent the more respectable wing of the far-right movement - a fact which in and of itself should be profoundly disturbing. Others are more emphatic - Jobbik in Hungary are open in their anti-Semitic and anti-LGBT views, whilst Greece's Golden Dawn are self-declared neo-Nazis. All across the continent, the far-right is rearing its head.

  In the UK, our own far-right party - the BNP - is mercifully set on what appears to be a course of self-destruction. For this, we should be glad, but we have - of course - a usurper to their vacated throne. UKIP, hovering in the murky political territory between the nasty-but-accepted Tories and the rightfully ostracised BNP, have expertly stolen the fascists' thunder.

  Advocating unilateral withdrawal from the European Union, UKIP are currently second in the EU election polls and - if they follow the course they did five years ago - may well win. Whilst they are clearly infinitely preferable to their fascist and fascist-leaning counterparts on the continent, they still represent the same general sorts of feelings - anger at the dire straits the country finds itself in, and a self-righteous, indignant self-confidence that they know who to blame it all on. Just because the anti-foreigner brigade in this country are slightly less rabid, doesn't mean we should be gulled into thinking them balanced, reasonable individuals.

  So in a month's time, when you go to cast your vote at the ballot box, think on this - what kind of a Europe do YOU want to see? United and strong - or divided and overrun by nationalist prejudices?

  I know my answer.

The Secular State

  Declaration of Interest: I am an atheist.

  A proper one, too - not an agnostic, in a kind of amorphous muddle as to whether there's a God (or indeed, gods) or not, but a full-nine-yards, there-is-no-God, when-you-die-that's-pretty-much-it, Jesus-was-just-an-ordinary-chap-if-he-even-existed-at-all-which-has-recently-had-doubt-cast-upon-it-as-an-historical-hypothesis kind of atheist. That said, I'm perfectly willing to reconsider this view if any decent evidence is to the contrary is thrown my way, but - until that point - atheist I shall remain. 

  Not that this should really make a difference to the subject under discussion, but I felt it was important to get it out of the way. I have, one might say, a vested interest in this topic. So does everyone else, of course, but we'll get to that.

  Now, what do I mean by 'secular'? The conservative elements within our society - i.e. the Conservative Party, the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph, the vast majority of religious institutions etc. etc. - often demonise secularists as 'militant atheists'. What exactly they mean by this phrase is less clear, so I shall turn to the dictionary for assistance - the Oxford English Dictionary, specifically, just to appeal to their conservative sensibilities.

  Militant: Favouring confrontational or violent methods in support of a political or social cause
  Atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

  Therefore, the accusation seems to be that secularists are people who favour confrontational or violent methods in support of the lack of belief in God or gods. How exactly one could favour violent methods in favour of the lack of belief in something, I do not quite understand. I could see how one could be a militant anti-theist, which would involve violence in the active opposition to religion, but that's a different matter. Hmmm...could the conservatives possibly have made a ridiculous semantic error? Surely not! Such a thing would be impossible...

  In any case, the OED defines secular as meaning 'Not connected with religious or spiritual matters'. What a secularist is, then, is someone who supports the idea that an institution - in this case, the state - should not be connected with religious or spiritual matters. The destruction of Christianity, western morality and the entirety of civilised society is by no means implied - think of it as an optional extra. Indeed, you don't have to be an anti-theist, atheist or even an agnostic to be a secularist - religious people can, and should, be in favour of a state which is not connected to or affiliated with religious groups.

  The reasons for this are clear: the domination by any one religious denomination of state institutions will almost certainly lead to conditions within that state which favour that religious denomination. So, using the UK as the obvious example, the domination of the established Christian Church of England means that non-Christians (and, to a lesser degree, non-Anglican Christians) are all disadvantaged - whether they are believers or not. The only people who should not be up in arms from a practical standpoint are the CofE themselves - and surely they can see that the status quo is morally untenable.

  Put simply, the CofE has too much power. It gets twenty-six bishops in the House of Lords, making it the only institution in the country which is constitutionally guaranteed a say in our lawmaking process (the relatively toothless monarchy excepted). Justifications of this presence on the grounds of membership simply don't add up - by such a calculation, the RSPB is entitled to at least twelve seats in the House itself, but the clamours for this and other popular charitable organisations to be ennobled are tellingly absent. 

  Religion more generally has huge powers over education - around a third of all UK schools are controlled by religious groups, allowing them a huge ability to influence our children. Faith schools don't have to teach about other religions - this is indoctrination, pure and simple - and can select their pupils on the basis of faith, allowing them to exclude what are often the less advantaged prospective pupils. The state also provides tax-relief to religious groups, running into vast amounts - although the refusal of multiple freedom of information requests on the subject prevents us from knowing just how much is stolen from the taxpayer in this way. 

  A secular state would prevent taxpayers' money from being used to subsidise already hugely-profitable organisations; it would remove the anti-democratic presence of twenty-six men (and they are, of course, men - no female bishops allowed, remember?) from our Parliament whose presence their is predicated purely upon their already-privileged position within a dying church; and it would end the practice of religious groups controlling our children's education.

  Furthermore, secularism is the only truly effective way of guaranteeing equal rights for all. The aforementioned ban on female bishops in the CofE is just one example of how religious influence in our state institutions violates basic human rights; the fact that the head of state of this country cannot, for entirely anachronistic reasons, be a Catholic is another. A secular state would guarantee equal rights and responsibilities for all citizens, regardless of their faith or lack thereof.

  It is not an example of 'militant atheism' to demand that all people be treated as equal by the constitution - it is the central principle of democracy. Until we have a secular state, the UK's claim to be democratic is a patently false one.

Education, Education, Education - Part One: Who Rules the Schools?

  When the Blair government created the Academy Programme in 2000, their intention was to lift the performance of failing schools in deprived areas to match the standards of more affluent areas. As of May 2010, and the end of New Labour's tenure, there were 203 academies in England (devolved authorities not having implemented the programme). 

  An academy, for those who don't know, is a publicly funded school which is independent of local authority control. Generally constituted as charities, academies' most important feature is that they have private 'sponsors'. These can be individuals or organisations such as the United Learning Trust which sponsors 36 academies across the country. In exchange for providing 10% of the academy's startup costs, a sponsor gains considerable influence  over the curriculum, ethos, specialism (academies specialise in a particular subject area such as technology or languages) and even the buildings of the school. They also have the power to appoint governors to the school's board. 

  This is a considerable amount of power to transfer into the hands of a third party - especially to large organisations which, as shown above, can control large numbers of different academies. The ability to appoint governors is particularly worrying, as this allows major decisions about the school - including the appointment of the headteacher - to be unduly influenced by the sponsor. For the relatively modest asking price of 10% of capital costs, anyone with the cash can essentially buy control of a school.

  Now, though it pains me to accept that New Labour was anything other than a poisonous blot upon the history of this country, it must - reluctantly - be admitted that the initial run of academies largely fulfilled their aims. Transforming 203 poorly-performing schools into relatively good ones is not a bad outcome for such a programme, and indeed many academies towards the end of the New Labour period began to significantly outperform local state schools. All well and good, you might think, and maybe the surrender of power to private individuals is just about compensation for the vast increase in performance. I disagree, but it's an argument at least - power for results.

  Until, that is, the coalition got involved. *sigh*

  Michael Gove in his infinite wisdom (NB: for 'wisdom', please read 'idiocy') removed the need for academies to be poorly performing schools - in fact, whilst such academies can still be forcibly created, the vast majority of new academies ask for the status to be granted. And, of course, in order to do so they have to have achieved at least a 'good', preferably an 'outstanding', in their Ofsted report. This has the effect of completely ruining the point of academies in the first place, and of completely scuppering the above argument which is the only possible justification for their existence.

  Now, power is not exchanged for results - the schools are already good - but simply surrendered in return for a paltry contribution towards the cost of establishing the academy, a cost which wouldn't of course exist were the sponsor not involved in the first place. The Coalition, in effect, is allowing rich individuals and large organisations to buy schools. 

  And why wouldn't you? You look philanthropic and you get the ability to force your own views and ethos upon the children of tomorrow. What's not to like?! Well, from the perspective of the sponsors, nothing - which probably has had something to do with the vast explosion of academy numbers since the Coalition came into power. As of November last year, the most recent data available, 3,444 schools in England have converted to academies - including around 45% of all secondary schools.

  This is not good. And there's worse. Academies are bad, sure, but compared to Free Schools, they seem tame and gentle. 

  A Free School is essentially a super-academy - the logical extension of the decentralisation principle behind the academy programme. The difference is that they are entirely, rather than partially, controlled by the group which establishes them - and that group doesn't even need to pay the 10%. Groups which can establish Free Schools include parents' groups, education trusts and universities - but also private schools, businesses and religious organisations.

  The extra powers of Free Schools mean that, whereas Academies can vary the national curriculum, they can depart completely from it. This has led to fears that some groups, particularly religious organisations, will be able to avoid teaching topics which do not fit their particular ethos, such as natural selection, or to teach entirely discredited theories such as creationism as if they were scientifically valid.

  These fears were confirmed in July 2012 when Grindon Hall Christian School, Exemplar Academy, and Sevenoaks Christian School were found to be doing just that - despite assurances from the government that religious fundamentalists would not be able to use the Free School system to indoctrinate children. Concerns have been raised about the possibility of an Islamic fundamentalist takeover of schools in Birmingham, while the Al-Madinah Free School in Derby has already been closed due to a series of increasingly worrying reports of sinister goings-on, including the forcing of female teachers to wear headscarves and the segregation of students along gender lines. 

  The Free School system is clearly open to abuse, and to cap it all it's not even been successful. Many Free Schools are failing their pupils: the closure of the Discovery Free School in December 2013 was the first sign of this trend, and official papers recently leaked to the Observer show that Michael Gove has targeted a number of other Free Schools for high-priority improvements to limit the 'political ramifications of any more free schools being judged inadequate'.


  This evidence of Free Schools being given undue prioritisation for political reasons is typical of Gove's DfE. More shocking is the Education Act 2011, which states that local authorities can only open a new school in an area which needs one once they have put out a request for proposals for Free Schools and Academies. This not only means that residents will have to suffer an even longer consultation process before a new school can be built, but also that free schools and academies are essentially being forced upon local authorities by central government, purely to advance the Coalition's political agenda.

  The bottom line on these schools is this: they are failing children, open to abuse and must be stopped. We must call on Gove and his team to roll back the academies and free schools programme, repeal the Academies Act 2010 and Education Act 2011 and return openness and educational independence to our schools.

  That'll might mean voting the Tories out of power, though. What a shame...

Left Unity

          A.K.A The 14th of November Movement

  Left Unity was founded on the 30th November 2013 after an appeal by film director Ken Loach for a party to the left of Labour. The appeal received over 10,000 signatures and the party held its first national policy conference on the 29th of March 2014. A number of other left-wing groups, such as the Communist Party of Great Britain's Provisional Central Committee, are affiliated to it.

  Left Unity is the least economically liberal of the political parties. It advocates nationalisation of public utilities - including Royal Mail - the transport industry and the financial services sector. They plan to reverse the austerity spending cuts of the coalition and reduce working hours in order to attain full employment. The party is a firm believer in progressive taxation, advocates the introduction of a living wage and favours a cooperative approach to industry.

  Left Unity social policy is liberal, with a firm commitment to anti-discrimination laws, and opposition to what it sees as the bureaucracy and anti-democratic nature of the major institutions of the UK. There is significant opposition within the party to traditional features of the UK political system, such as the House of Lords and the establishment of the Church of England. 

  Left Unity fully supports the welfare state and wishes to reverse the changes to the social security system implemented by the Coalition.  They would abolish tuition fees, remove free schools, academies and NHS Trusts and provide more extensive subsidies for the arts. They would also include adult education and nurseries within the provision of free education.

  Left Unity's foreign policy is highly internationalist. They are anti-war but promote the participation of working people from all countries in ending oppression and capitalism across the world. They support self-determination for all nations, particularly the Palestinians and Kurds, and an international response to major world issues.

  Left Unity is a green political party and believes that the reformation of the current economic system is necessary to combat climate change. They favour an international approach to resolving the problem and are also concerned with animal welfare and ecological diversity.

  The party is governed by its national council, the National Secretary of which is Kate Hudson. Other notable Left Unity members include party Principal Speaker and journalist Salman Shaheen. The party did not exist at the time of the last General Election but has around 1,900 members.

WEBSITE: http://leftunity.org/

The British National Party

          A.K.A The BNP; The British Nationals

  The British National Party was founded in 1982 by John Tyndall in a merger between a number of far-right political organisations. Criticised by many as being racist and even fascist, membership of the BNP was restricted to 'indigenous British' people until 2010. 

  BNP economic policy is very protectionist, calling for British ownership of British industry and tariffs restricting foreign imports. It promotes autarky in terms of food production and is anti-globalist, calling for higher corporation tax for multinationals and spending cuts for foreign aid. It does not, however, espouse corporatism, a favoured policy of most nationalist parties.

  BNP social policy is highly conservative, indeed in many cases openly oppressive. Although no longer an officially white supremacist party, the BNP is still highly racist and opposes equal rights for non-white, foreign-born or non-Christian citizens. The party is strongly opposed to both abortion and homosexuality, calling the latter 'unnatural', and opposes both same-sex and interracial marriages. The party supports the institutions of the monarchy, the House of Lords, the nuclear family and traditional gender roles - i.e. women as housewives. The BNP sees Christianity as 'the benchmark for decent civilised society' and is opposed to Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism and - most especially - Islam. Its anti-Semitism has grown less pronounced in recent years, and it now supports Israel's existence. BNP criminal justice policy is very harsh, advocating the return of the death penalty and the establishment of a penal colony on South Georgia. The party also wishes to withdraw from the ECHR and scrap the Human Rights Act. They support the criminalisation of drugs.

  The BNP wishes to restrict NHS use to British nationals only and to do the same to education. The party supports strict educational discipline, including the return of corporal punishment and Christian indoctrination in schools, and a centrally controlled National Curriculum. It also wishes to reform the social security system so as to prevent welfare dependency and restrict social housing to British citizens.

  BNP foreign policy is built around serving the UK's interests. They desire a federal union with the Republic of Ireland but to withdraw from the EU. The party instead advocates stronger ties with the Commonwealth in order to maintain the balance of trade payments. The BNP would cut all foreign aid. They want to reintroduce conscription, mandate the keeping of a gun and ammunition for all adult men and maintain the nuclear deterrent, though are non-interventionist in their military policy.

  The BNP do not believe climate change is occurring and oppose all moves towards renewable energy on the grounds of cost. They are, however, not in favour of fracking which they regard as potentially unsafe.

  The party leader is Nick Griffin. Other notable BNP members include ethnically Jewish 2010 election candidate Patricia Richardson. The party won 1.9% of the vote but none of the seats in the House of Commons at the last General Election and has around 4,900 members.

WEBSITE: http://www.bnp.org.uk/

The Green Party of England and Wales

          A.K.A The Green Party; The Greens

  Founded in 1973 as the PEOPLE Party, the first UK political party to have environmental policies, it became the Ecology Party in 1975, the Green Party in 1985 and - after the split with the pro-independence Scottish Greens in 1990 - the Green Party of England of Wales, though commentators outside of Scotland generally refer to it simply as the Green Party. Founded out of rising fears of climate change during the 1970s, it has grown in popularity as the effects of human impact on the Earth's ecology become more obvious.  

  The Greens are less neoliberal than the larger parties, proposing renationalisation of several companies, including Royal Mail and the the railways. They are committed to social justice and the prevention of poverty through progressive taxation and the implementation of a Citizen's Income - a regular, non-means-tested payment to every citizen regardless of employment or otherwise. They oppose public sector cuts in general.

  Green social policy is highly liberal. They strongly support same-sex marriage and gay rights in general and are intent on bringing an end to discrimination. They oppose extensive use of prisons and are in favour of legalising marijuana. The party is fully committed to the HRA.

  Greens support the welfare state and oppose social security cuts and the welfare cap. However, as mentioned above, they desire to replace jobseekers' allowance with a universal Citizens' Income, in line with the original principles of the 1940s welfarist movement. They favour localisation of health and education (along with all other services which can be practically localised). They are also in favour of a phased abolition of university tuition fees.

  Green foreign policy is highly pacifist - they oppose military interventionism, the UK's membership of NATO and the continuation of the trident nuclear defence system. They are also moderately eurosceptic, as they feel that the EU is too closely tied to corporate interests and support a referendum on the UK's membership, though they are not opposed to the EU's existence in principle. The Green Party believes in international cooperation in order to promote sustainability and diplomatic dispute resolution.

  The Green Party is, unsurprisingly, the most environmentally-focused of the UK's political parties and opposes the continued use of fossil fuels in favour of the introduction of completely renewable energy sources for the UK, though divisions exist as to whether to include nuclear energy in this. The party promotes animal welfare and natural diversity as being integral to human quality of life and in the interests of natural organisms own rights. They oppose both fracking and the HS2 high-speed rail line.

  The party leader is Natalie Bennett and the deputy leader is Will Duckworth. Other notable Greens include former leader and the party's sole MP Caroline Lucas, Green Party peer Baron Timothy Beaumont and leader of the semi-autonomous Wales Green Party Pippa Bartolotti. The party won 0.9% of the vote and 0.2% of the seats in the House of Commons at the last General Election and has around 16,000 members.

WEBSITE: http://www.greenparty.org.uk/

The United Kingdom Independence Party

          A.K.A UKIP

  UKIP was founded as cross-party pressure group the Anti-Federalist League in 1991 and become a political party in 1993. It has grown steadily more popular during the 2000s, rising to claim an average of 12% in the polls during recent months. It has numerous Councillors and 9 MEPs, but has never had an elected MP.

  UKIP is, economically, extremely liberal. The party advocates a flat rate of income tax (31%), cuts to corporation tax and the abolition of inheritance tax. They also call for £77 billion of further cuts to public expenditure, though they have been heavily criticised for what the Times has alleged is a £120 billion hole in their spending plans.

  UKIP call themselves libertarian but they are in reality socially highly conservative. The party is highly committed to traditional institutions, opposing same-sex marriage and wanting the return of oaths of allegiance to the Monarch.The party wants to scrap the HRA and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, thereby removing the authority of the European Court of Human Rights. They do, however, support the decriminalisation of drugs. 

  UKIP's welfare policy is mixed. It calls for a severe cut in the social security bill and a cut in health spending on bureaucracy, but wants to use the money saved to introduce free dental and optical care. They are also in favour of further localisation of the health service.

  UKIP foreign policy is isolationist. While generally pro-American, the party is anti-interventionist and is opposed to overseas aid spending. They are focused on their main goal - the party's original raison d'etre - of withdrawal of the UK from the European Union, which they feel is too expensive and has too much power over UK legislation. They are committed to NATO and, especially, the Commonwealth but are uncertain over the future of Trident. They also present themselves as anti-mass immigration, though they are in favour of managed immigration of skilled workers with EU states on a level playing field with the rest of the world.

  UKIP is highly climate change-sceptic and has advocated banning climate change film An Inconvenient Truth in schools and ending government subsidies of wind farms, which they consider an eyesore. They are pro-fracking but are opposed to HS2, mainly on economic grounds.

  The party leader is Nigel Farage, the deputy leader is Paul Nuttall and the executive chairman is Steve Crowther. Other notable UKIP members include Director of Communications Patrick O'Flynn, now-independent MEP Godfrey Bloom and failed Eastleigh by-election candidate Diane James.The party won 3.1% of the vote but none of the seats in the House of Commons at the last General Election and has around 35,000 members.

WEBSITE: http://www.ukip.org/

The Liberal Democrats

          A.K.A The Lib Dems

  The Liberal Democrats were created by a merger of the Liberal Party - itself founded in 1859 out of an alliance of Whigs, Peelite Tories and Radicals - and the 1981 breakaway Labour group the SDP in 1988. The Liberal Party was the main opposition to the Conservatives up until the 1920s, and introduced such radical reforms as the creation of the original welfare state. The SDP were a less left-wing version of Labour who had become concerned in the late 1970s about the alleged Trotskyite Communist infiltration of the party.  

  The Liberal Democrats are the junior partner in the current Coalition Government. The party won 23% of the vote and 8.8% of the seats in the House of Commons at the last General Election and has around 44,000 members.


Economics

• The Lib Dems' core economic policies follow the basic neoliberal principles of a free deregulated market, minimised state expenditure across most areas and private ownership of industry
• Lib Dem taxation policies are more progressive than the Conservatives and are on a par with New Labour; they support generally low direct taxation but first proposed the idea of a mansion tax on properties worth over £2 million and have been the main drivers behind the increase in the personal allowance threshold to £10,500
• The Lib Dems are committed to a swift reduction of the budget deficit

Social Policy and the Constitution

• Liberal Democrat social policy is more progressive than the other major parties; they have been long-time proponents of LGBT rights and are generally in favour of increased diversity
• The Lib Dems wish to replace the House of Lords with an elected second chamber and to reform the voting system for Westminster Parliamentary elections to a more proportional system - with their preference being STV - and to reduce the voting age to 16. There is traditionally support within the party for disestablishment of the Church of England
• The party is committted to the Human Rights Act, though some of their actions in coalition - including the introduction of secret courts - seem to contradict this view

Welfare, Health & Education

• The Lib Dems hold the view that the welfare state should be sufficient to provide a safety net for those who need it but should not be so extensive and to allow long-term dependence; the party grassroots are generally more supportive of social security than the leadership
• Lib Dem education policy is largely in line with the other major parties, including the existence of diverse types of school including academies and free schools, but they are in favour of significant reductions in university tuition fees - though they have received heavy criticism for their failure to keep their pledge to remove them entirely prior to the 2010 general election
• The party supports harsh cuts to the department of health - 50% - and is in favour of the decentralisation of the NHS through the introduction of more NHS Trusts

Crime and Justice Policy

• Party policy remains full criminalisation of most drugs, though some individual Lib Dems have called for a relaxation of drugs laws
• Lib Dems want a less punishment-focused, more rehabilitationary criminal justice system, though in coalition they have supported Conservative efforts in the other direction
• The Lib Dems, in coalition with the Conservatives, have introduced secret courts, in which persons can be tried for serious offences without being even allowed to speak or know the charges against them, as part of their commitment to tackle terrorism

Foreign Policy and Defence

• The Liberal Democrats are in favour of NATO membership but are less concerned with the 'special relationship' with the USA than other major parties
• The coalition has increased foreign aid spending to 0.7% of GDP
• The party is generally anti-interventionist, though there was support for action in Libya
• The Lib Dems do not wish a like-for-like replacement for the Trident nuclear missile system when it reaches the end of its usable life

Europe

• The Lib Dems are fully committed to membership of the EU and are in favour of further European integration, including a possible UK accession to the Eurozone at some point in the future
• The party is committed to an in/out referendum if there is further significant transfer of powers to Brussels, though this is in fact enshrined in law in any case
• The Lib Dems support TTIP, an EU policy which would allow US companies to sue the UK government and to buy out public services such as the NHS

The Environment

• The Lib Dems are committed to increasing focus on renewable resources and replacement of those trees cut down for timber
• They support fracking and the HS2 high-speed rail line

Important Party Figures:

• Nick Clegg MP: Deputy Prime Minister and Party Leader
• Vince Cable MP: Business Secretary
• Danny Alexander MP: Chief Secretary to the Treasury
• Ed Davey MP: Energy Secretary
• Tim Farron MP: President of the party
• Jeremy Browne MP: Right-wing party theorist
• Simon Hughes MP: Minister for Civil Liberties; Former Deputy Party Leader
• Malcom Bruce MP: EDeputy Party Leader
• Baroness Shirley Williams: Former Education Secretary; Co-Founder of the SDP
• Lord Paddy Ashdown: Party election strategist; Former Party Leader

WEBSITE: http://www.libdems.org.uk/

Explaining...the Conservative Party

Background

  The Conservative Party was officially founded in 1834, but traces its roots to 1678 and the formation of the Tory Party - a name the modern party still bears. The Conservatives merged with the Liberal Unionists in 1912, giving the party its rarely-used official name of the Conservative and Unionist Party.

  The party spent 57 years of the twentieth century in government, with leaders such as Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher some of the most famous figures in recent British history. From 1945 to 1975, the party espoused the post-war social democratic economic consensus established by the Attlee governments of 1945-551; after 1975, however, the party under Thatcher's leadership swung to the right and the Conservative governments of 1979-1997 saw the dismantling of the post-war consensus and the establishment of the neoliberal economic orthodoxy as the lynchpin of British political discourse.


The Party Today

  The modern Conservative Party has 174,000 members and is led by David Cameron MP. The Conservatives are the largest party in the current Coalition government, with the Liberal Democrats as their junior partner. They won 36.1% of the popular vote in the 2010 General Election and currently hold 302 seats in the House of Commons (46.5%). They also have 19 seats in the European Parliament (26% of the UK total) and 40.3% of Local Government positions.


Policy Record

  The modern Conservative Party dates from 1975; its principal actions from 1979 to 1990 under Margaret Thatcher were the lowering of direct taxes in favour of raised indirect taxes; the privatisation of major national infrastructure and industry including British Steel, British Telecom, British Airways and British Petroleum; the increase in police powers and numbers; and the deregulation of the financial sector. Thatcher was also largely responsible for the introduction of the Single European Act, introducing freedom of movement in goods, services, capital and labour throughout the EEC.

  Under John Major, privatisation continued with that of British Rail. Most other policies remained consistent from the Thatcher era, while Major pursued a controversial policy of integration with Europe, signing the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. Conservative economic incompetence led to the catastrophe of Black Wednesday and sparked a recession, eventually culminating in a Labour landslide victory in 1997. In opposition, the party adopted the minimum wage and opposed strongly the UK joining the Euro. Under Michael Howard, it became increasingly critical of the USA and of the Iraq War.

  Since the return to government under David Cameron, the Conservative Party has followed a programme of vast public spending cuts, coinciding with a sharp rise in borrowing. They have continued the privatisation of earlier Conservative governments with the sell-off of Royal Mail and have ceded control of many schools through the academies and free schools programmes and parts of the NHS through tranfer of some services to private companies. The party has also pursued a slashing of the social security budget through the introduction of Universal Credit, the benefit cap and the so-called 'bedroom tax'. Promised environmental reforms have not materialised, and whilst the introduction of behind-closed-doors trials for some crimes and the reinforcement of security service surveillance powers have strengthened the coercive state, military expenditure and troop numbers have been drastically cut.


Policy Promises

  Economics

• Eliminate the deficit by 2018
• Raise of the tax-free Personal Allowance to £12,500 by 2020
• Raise of the threshold for the 40% income tax band to £50,000
• Further reduce public sector pay

  Social Policy & The Constitution

• Maintain of the SMP system for General Elections
• Replace of the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights
• Prevent non-English MPs from voting on English-only Bills in the House of Commons

  Health, Welfare & Education

• Maintain current NHS budget in real terms
• Lower benefit cap to £23,000
• Ensure patient access to GPs 7 days a week

  Crime and Justice Policy

• Introduce extremism prevention orders to ban radical speakers from communication channels

  Foreign Policy and Defence

• Help deal with Islamic State

  Europe

• Renegotiate the UK's membership of the EU, with particular focus on migration
• Hold a referendum on UK membership of the EU by the end of 2017
• Support the TTIP trade compact between the EU and the USA

  Transport, Energy & Environment

• Complete the HS2 and HS3 high-speed rail links

Important Party Figures

  Cabinet Ministers

• David Cameron       Prime Minister and Leader of the Party
• George Osborne     Chancellor of the Exchequer
• Theresa May            Home Secretary
• Phillip Hammond     Foreign Secretary
• William Hague          Leader of the House of Commons
• Iain Duncan Smith   Work and Pensions Secretary
• Chris Grayling         Justice Secretary
• Michael Fallon         Defence Secretary
• Jeremy Hunt            Health Secretary
• Eric Pickles              Local Government Secretary
• Nicky Morgan          Education Secretary
• Justine Greening    International Development Secretary
• Theresa Villiers       Northern Ireland Secretary
• Stephen Crab           Wales Secretary
• Sajid Javid               Culture Secretary
• Elizabeth Truss        Environment Secretary

  Others

• Michael Gove           Chief Whip
• Grant Schapps         Co-Chairman of the party
• Andrew Feldman      Co-Chairman of the party
• Boris Johnson          Mayor of London

WEBSITE: http://www.conservatives.com/

Explaining...the Labour Party

Background

  The Labour Party was founded as the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) in 1900 out of the trade union movement and other socialist groups. It became officially the Labour Party in 1906 – before this point, it had been a loose affiliation of organisations.

  The party overtook the Liberal Party as the main opposition to the Conservatives in the 1920s, winning its first election in 1924 under Ramsay MacDonald. The Attlee governments of 1945-51 are often seen as the high point of Labour’s success; during this period, the NHS was founded, the welfare state hugely expanded and numerous education reforms implemented, beginning the ‘Post-War Consensus’ which would last until the 1970s.

The Party Today

  The modern Labour Party has 190,000 members and is led by Ed Miliband MP. Labour, as the largest non-government party, forms the Official Opposition. They won 29% of the popular vote in the 2010 General Election and currently hold 257 seats in the House of Commons (39.5%). They also have 20 seats in the European Parliament (27.4% of the UK total) and 34.8%% of Local Government positions.

Policy Record

  The modern Labour Party can be dated to 1994 and the ascension of Tony Blair to the party leadership. Blair sharply accelerated the party’s 10-year drift towards the right, abandoning many traditionally socialist positions such as the nationalisation of key industries and infrastructure and adopting the neoliberal economic policy of the Conservative Party, as well as their more authoritarian stance of law & order.

  New Labour’s period in office saw the creation of harsh anti-terror legislation in the wake of the September 11^th attacks on the USA and a continued expansion of police powers. The party maintained the privatised and largely deregulated state of the economy, contributing to the huge negative impact of the global 2008 financial crash on the UK. The Labour Party expanded the welfare state, in the form largely of in-work benefits to top up low incomes, and engaged in closer co-operation with the European Union, signing the Lisbon Treaty and making (unrealised) preparations for EMU. The introduction of a national minimum wage and the passing of the Human Rights Act are two of the more traditionally left-wing results of the New Labour years, along with extensive devolution to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Greater London. The Blair government was also responsible for the UK’s participation in the unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for beginning the decentralisation of the health and education systems through extensive PFI deals and the academies programme.

  In opposition, under the leadership of Ed Miliband and with Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor, Labour have largely maintained the New Labour line on most policy areas. They have not moved for renationalisation – nor for significant new regulation, the planned energy price fix and the separation of the banks’ retail and investment arms notwithstanding. They generally support government ‘austerity’ measures, querying only the precise targets – and success – of these cuts. Labour remains pro-EU but has been persuaded by the rise of UKIP to move to the right on immigration. They have also lessened their support for interventionism, opposing UK action in Syria in 2013 – though they have since supported the government in its air strikes against the Islamic State.

Policy Promises

  Economics

• Raise the minimum wage to £8 an hour
• Reform zero-hours contracts, including preventing employers from mandating employees are always available
• Reintroduce the lower 10% income tax rate for low earners
• Reintroduce the 50% income tax rate for the highest earners
• Create a Trade Investment Bank for small businesses
• Impose a ‘mansion tax: £3,000 a year tax on properties worth between £2 and £3 million
• Reduced corporation tax for small businesses

  Social Policy & The Constitution

• Maintain the SMP system for General Elections
• Build 200,000 houses a year by 2020
• Give families 25 hours of free childcare a week for 3- and 4-year-olds
• Scrap the ‘bedroom tax’
• Restrict the rise in Child Support Allowance to 1% a year
• Introduce the means testing of Winter Fuel Allowance

  Health, Welfare & Education

• Spend £2.5 billion on recruitment: 20,000 nurses, 8,000 doctors, 5,000 care workers and 3,000 midwives
• Guarantee that patients will be able to see their GP within 48 hours
• Consolidate NHS, social care and mental health systems
• Give all NHS staff training in mental health issues
• Mandate qualified teachers
• Undo the reorganisation of the NHS under the Health and Social Care Act

  Crime and Justice Policy

•  

  Foreign Policy and Defence

•  

  Europe

• Support TTIP (the EU-USA free trade agreement)

  Transport, Energy & Environment

• Freeze energy prices until 2017
• Create a million jobs in the ‘green sector’

Important Party Figures

  Shadow Ministers

• Ed Miliband              Leader of the Opposition (and of the party)
• Harriet Harman        Deputy Leader and Culture Secretary
• Ed Balls                    Shadow Chancellor
• Yvette Cooper          Shadow Home Secretary
• Douglas Alexander  Shadow Foreign Secretary
• Iain Duncan Smith   Work and Pensions Secretary
• Sadiq Khan               Shadow Justice Secretary
• Vernon Coaker         Shadow Defence Secretary
• Andy Burnham         Shadow Health Secretary
• Chuka Umunna        Shadow Business Secretary
• Rachel Reeves         Shadow Work & Pensions Secretary
• Hilary Benn               Shadow Local Government Secretary
• Caroline Flint            Shadow Energy Secretary
• Tristram Hunt           Shadow Education Secretary
• Mary Creagh             Shadow Transport Secretary and Shadow International                                                    Development Secretary
• Ivan Lewis                 Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary
• Margaret Curran       Shadow Scotland Secretary
• Owen Smith              Shadow Wales Secretary
• Maria Eagle               Environment Secretary
• Angela Eagle            Shadow Leader of the House of Commons
• Rosie Winterton        Shadow Chief Whip

  Others

• Carwyn Jones           First Minister of Wales

WEBSITE: http://www.labour.org.uk/