Speaker John Bercow Survives Cowardly Tory Plot to Unseat Him

  The Tories' cowardly attempt to bring down Speaker John Bercow has failed. The last-minute vote in the House of Commons today saw the government defeated by 2228 votes to 202 on a motion to make the process of voting in the Speaker of the House a secret ballot. This, despite being an apparent blow for democracy, is actually a very good thing.

Speaker John Bercow

  The election of the Speaker takes place at the beginning of each Parliament. Usually, if the sitting Speaker does not choose to step down and holds their Commons seat (which they always do, as they traditionally run unopposed by any major party) then they are re-elected as a matter of form. It is theoretically possible, however, that they could be voted out of office.

  Bercow, a former Conservative MP, has been one of the most progressive voices in terms of the conduct of Parliament, eschewing the traditional robes of his office in favour of a simple gown and frequently taking MPs to task for poor behaviour in the House. He has introduced a creche to Parliament to take the pressure off of those MPs who are parents - particularly mothers; he helped drive the creation of the Backbench Business Committee in 2010; and he has called for reform to the undignified, often appalling spectacle of PMQs - only to be blocked by the Tory backbenches. He is also a determined promoter of political participation to young people, appearing at numerous events. 

  The Conservative Party, however, don't like him - they look upon him as a traitor, who has abandoned his early right-wing views for a more socially liberal stance. They claim he is biased against the government, and would like to see him brought down. However, many are unwilling to vote against him in the division chambers, for fear of reprisals if they fail.

  I am instinctively torn on this issue. My instinct is that Parliament should move towards using secret ballots - not only would this allow the system to be made electronic, and thus save huge amounts of parliamentary time, it would also break the power of the whips and stop party leaderships from bullying their MPs into voting through legislation against their consciences. But to introduce it specifically for Speaker elections, and for no other votes, is both ludicrous and clearly politically motivated.

Charles Walker MP

  Moreover, the way this entire affair has been conducted is shambolic. Charles Walker MP, who chairs the Parliament's Procedure Committee, gave a speech declaring that he had been 'played like a fool' - the law had been based on a report he had given in the last Parliament, but had been ignored until today. He and many other senior parliamentarians had only been informed of the vote's imminence at the last minute. Michael Gove, the government Chief Whip, faced calls from the press gallery to resign after the debacle, having ordered a whipped party meeting before the vote.

  Speaker John Bercow has been fantastic for Parliament, and the cowardly attempt to unseat him reflects poorly on William Hague - who brought the bill - Gove and the entire Tory Party. Another disgrace to add to the list.

The Debates Debate

  The leaders' debates were an innovative feature of the 2010 General Election, giving the people of the UK the chance to see the principal contenders for their electoral affection go toe-to-toe over the major issues of the day. So far in 2015, however, they have proved an innovative way for the Conservative Party to waste everyone's time.

The History of TV Debates

  The original three debates, featuring Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, took place over a three-week period in the run-up to the election on the 6th of May. The televised verbal duel between the main contenders have been a feature of US Presidential elections for years, but - despite the efforts of previous party leaders to get them introduced since 1964 - they have not been historically used in Britain.

  The main objection to this head-to-head style of pre-election politicking is that it was suited only to a Presidential style of political leadership, which is not the way we do things in Britain. At a General Election, after all, we vote for individual MPs, not for a political party and certainly not for a party leader. In theory.
  
  The reality, of course, is that UK politics has become ever more Presidential over time, with the election and ten-year premiership of Tony Blair - the most President-like leader Britain has ever had in peacetime - sealing its fate. We vote, at election time, in most cases for the party we most identify with rather than the individual candidate that we best like. 

  So, the debates were introduced - at the insistence, mainly, of opposition leaders David Cameron and Nick Clegg. Now, however, Cameron is trying to get out of them. Recognising that the old argument wasn't going to wash in light of his own support of the debates just five years ago, he has turned instead to a plethora of others.

Proposals

  The original proposal for the 2015 pre-election debates - all the way back in October - was for a debate between Cameron and Labour leader Ed Miliband, a second debate also including Nick Clegg, and a third also including UKIP boss Nigel Farage. However, several smaller parties contested this decision - in particular the Green Party, who argued that they were performing on a level more or less equal to the Lib Dems in the polls.

  This began a long saga of political tussling over how exactly the debates should be held. The broadcasters initially rejected the Greens' demand for inclusion, prompting legal action. Cameron then declared he would not take part without the Greens. Miliband, Farage and Clegg wrote letters to the PM demanding he meet their challenge, but Cameron refused to budge.

  In January, the broadcasters announced revised plans: One head-to-head between Cameron and Miliband and two seven-way debates also including Nick Clegg, Nigel Farage, Green Party leader Natalie Bennett, SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon and Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood. These plans were then confirmed on the 23rd of February, with the first seven-way to take place on the 2nd of April, the second on the 16th, and the head-to-head on the 30th of April - just a week before the election.

Political Quibbling and David Cameron's Cowardice

  These plans weren't perfect. The DUP and SInn Fein - the two principal Northern Irish parties - both complained that if the SNP and Plaid were involved, they should be too. George Galloway, the single MP for the Respect Party, made a similar argument - if the Greens were to take part, with just one MP, then his party ought to have a chance to speak too. These points are both valid criticisms.

  To my mind, the correct solution would be to have a debate between the leaders of all the parties standing nationally (Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, UKIP and the Greens) and then separate debates featuring the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish leaders of those parties along with the nationalists. The head-to-head between Cameron and Miliband, as the only two realistic candidates for Prime Minister, also should go ahead. But this is really a side issue.

  Whatever the form of the debates, the main thing is that they should happen. In a system where the policies of political parties, and increasingly the calibre of their leaders, is important to how people cast their votes, we need to be able to see the people clamouring for our support make clear unambiguous statements of their views and then defend them. As David Cameron said back in 2010, they are essential for our democracy. And yet, he has proven the greatest block on them occurring of all.

  His latest objection is that the debates ought not to take place too close to the election, and therefore there isn't time any longer to stage the three debates which have been planned. The fact that the main reason that there is no time left is his own refusal to agree to the broadcasters' plans is clearly not something which bothers him. Instead, he is now calling for a single debate to take place before the end of March, including the seven leaders who the broadcasters have identified. The other seven-way and the head-to-head are to be scrapped.

  Both Cameron and the broadcasters have dug in their heels, the latter threatening to empty-chair the PM if he doesn't turn up. The problem with that, though, is that they might run afoul of pre-election impartiality rules if they allow Miliband to speak for 90 minutes in the 'head-to-head' without Cameron present. So, it becomes a war of attrition - each side trying to batter the other with enough political smears to make them cave in.

  Frankly, the reason for all this is that David Cameron is running scared. His delaying tactics have all been a ruse to fill out the larger debates with as many leaders as possible, in essence to reduce the airtime of Nigel Farage, who he knows will cut percentage points into Tory support with every minute he gets to speak. 

  His objections to the head-to-head debate are less obvious, but he fears Miliband may prove more competent in debate than people will expect him to. Most people's opinion of the Labour leader is the media-fuelled caricature of him as a bumbling buffoon, and whilst he certainly isn't the most charismatic leader Labour have ever had, he is a far more skilled public speaker than is perhaps apparent.

Conclusions

  At this point, it looks increasingly unlikely that the debates will happen. If they do, they will most likely be reduced to Cameron's ultimatum of the single seven-way debate before the short campaign starts on March 30th. Since this will mean having them before the parties have even published their manifestos, this makes the entire process rather less meaningful.

  Through his constant prevarications and craven cowardice, David Cameron has all but scuppered what he himself claimed were debates 'essential to our democracy'. The Prime Minister's commitment to the ideals of 'democracy' have surely to be questioned, therefore. Once again, a leading politician has put politicking before principles and sacrificed the people's right to make an informed choice about their leaders on the altar of grabbing a possible head start in the political race for No. 10.

  It is a sickening display, and he should be fully ashamed of himself. But I doubt he cares.

The Curious Case of Douglas Carswell

  Douglas Carswell was first returned to Parliament in 2005 for the Essex constituency of Harwich. A Conservative Party member since 1990, he defected to UKIP in August 2014 and stood down as MP for Clacton, triggering a by-election which he won by a landslide.

  Since then, Carswell has been one of the principal figures in the UKIP surge and an outspoken member of the party leadership. He also, however, has been reported as clashing with UKIP leader Nigel Farage on a number of occasions - something he has, of course, denied.

  But it is clear that Carswell is something apart from the mass of Ukippers. Whilst he is in line with general 'UKIP-py' policies such as opposing equal marriage for same-sex couples and scepticism about anthropogenic climate change - as well as, of course, the core UKIP mission of getting the UK out of the EU - he is something of a radical when it comes to other areas.

  Particularly of interest is his dedication to electoral reform. The Daily Telegraph named him their Briton of the Year in 2009 for his commitment to shaking up what he calls 'that cosy little clique called Westminster'. In a speech at the UKIP conference on Saturday, he outlined his proposals for changes to the electoral system.

  First on his list is recall elections. The coalition has introduced a form of this in the Recall of MPs Bill, but this is a weak form of recall which only allows voters to replace their MPs if they are sentenced to more than a year in prison or the Commons Standards Committee bans them from the House for 21 days. Carswell believes that real reform means having a threshold at which a simple petition can trigger an election - in his proposal, 20%.

  Another policy of his is to mandate that ministerial appointments are confirmed by the relevant House of Commons Committee. This procedure already occurs in the USA, and would prevent the Prime Minister from appointing favourites who do not command the confidence of the House as a whole.

  Of course, the jewel in the crown of these reforms is replacement of the archaic Single Member Plurality (or first-past-the-post) system with which we choose our MPs. Moving towards a more proportional system would, of course, benefit UKIP hugely - but it would also make Parliament far more democratic. My own article outlining the reasons for reform can be found here.

  All of this is rather sensible, and somewhat removed from the immigrant-bashing, Thatcherite-plus rhetoric of the majority of UKIP's leadership. Douglas Carswell and Nigel Farage have seemed strange bedfellows since the beginning, but now with the election campaign beginning in earnest, the differences between the two may become more important.

  It is far too early to say whether the fault lines of some future split have emerged, but one thing is clear: Douglas Carswell is a UKIPper apart.

A Royal Coup? – Queen Guitarist Brian May Considering Standing for Election

Brian May might not be of the House of Windsor, but the Queen guitarist is certainly rock royalty, and earlier today (4th February 2015) his agent announced that the 67-year-old is considering standing as an MP in the 2015 General Election. Coming on the heels of comedian Al Murray’s decision to stand against Nigel Farage in Thanet South (albeit in his guise as the Pub Landlord), it seems like 2015 may follow in Britain’s fine tradition of celebrity candidates.

However, whereas Murray’s campaign is – I’m sure the guv’nor himself would admit – a bit of a joke, May’s political credentials are a touch more serious. The CBE he was awarded in 2005 was a decoration both for his services to music and his charity work; for May, as well as penning hits such as ‘We Will Rock You’ and ‘The Show Must Go On’ and attaining a Ph.D. in astrophysics, has also devoted much energy to campaigning, principally on behalf of wildlife.

He – along with actor and fellow Brian, Brian Blessed – led the Team Badger (with the unfortunate acronym TB) campaign against the proposed badger cull in 2013. May also heads the organisation ‘Save Me’, dedicated to protecting animal rights, particularly with regards to fox hunting and badger culling.

His campaigning, however, has since expanded from the sphere of animal welfare: the Common Decency initiative, founded by May just last month, focuses on reform to Parliament and our democratic system, intending to root out corruption from Parliament and establish a new system whereby MPs vote according to their conscience, not strict party discipline. It is under the banner of Common Decency that May’s proposed Parliamentary bid – if it materialises – will be fought.

Brian May’s announcement today is more, then, than just another celebrity poking their nose into politics for an extra five minutes in the limelight. The Common Decency initiative is aimed at one of the greatest problems with modern British democracy – that MPs simply do not represent the people, leaving us effectively powerless. The fact that May – a self-confessed habitual Tory voter – has decided to throw his weight behind this important issue shows just how far the traditional parties have failed the electorate.

If he does choose to stand at the General Election, there will no doubt be people lining up to vote for him. I, for one, hope that he does, and brings a little new life and new energy into our stifled political system. Long live the Queen!

Victory for Syriza

  Syriza, the left-wing alliance, have won the Greek elections. This shouldn't come as too much of a surprise to anyone who has been following the situation - all the pre-election polls pointed towards this result. Nevertheless, this is a pivotal moment in not just Greek but European politics: The first time since the financial crash that any Eurozone country has had a government opposed to ruthless austerity.

  The votes at the time of writing have not all been counted, but Syriza looks set to win 149 seats in the Greek parliament - just two short of an absolute majority. In order to form a majority government, therefore, they need a coalition partner willing to work with them against EU austerity. That partner is the right-wing Independent Greeks party, led by Panos Kamnenos, a splinter from the centre-right New Democracy. Both parties are fiercely opposed to austerity and to EU interference in Greece. 

  Independent Greeks have 13 seats in the new parliament, giving the coalition a majority of 11 - not ideal, but still a massive achievement for Syriza leader Alexis Tsipras. At the age of 40, he is the youngest Prime Minister Greece has had for 150 years, and he has transformed Syriza from a fringe party of the left into the largest in Greece. 

  Syriza's victory changes everything. Tsipras has stated that he does not intend to leave the Eurozone, but has made it perfectly clear that he is no Europhile either. Syriza's partnership with the Independent Greeks will also bring a more Eurosceptic bent to the new coalition government. The policy clash between the two partners on non-economic issues, such as immigration and the position of the Greek Orthodox Church, may also cause problems down the line. However, for now Greece appears to have a dynamic, anti-neoliberal government capable perhaps of overturning the austerity measures imposed by the Eurozone's central command.

  Make no mistake, the election of Syriza is not a panacea. Greece's Eurozone partners, particularly Germany, will be as determined to preserve the status quo as Syriza is to overturn it. Centre-left figures such as France's Francois Hollande and Italy's Matteo Renzi have failed to overturn the austerity consensus at the EU level, and Syriza will have to work with others across Europe if they intend to succeed. 

  But Syriza, unlike the previous New Democracy government, offer the Greeks hope. The economy of Greece buckled under austerity, contracting by 25% under the ministrations of the so-called 'troika' (the ECB, IMF and European Commission). Austerity has failed in Greece as it has across Europe. The Syriza victory will spur the anti-austerity movement across the continent. With general elections set to take place in the UK, Denmark, Estonia, Finland and Spain (where the left-wing Podemos is vying with the governing People's Party for first place), 2015 may well be the year in which the ideology of European austerity crumbles.

  We can but hope. And vote.

The Failure of George Osborne's 'Economic Plan'

  The Tories say the economy is recovering, and they point to GDP growth statistics of 1.7% last year and a forecast of 2.7% for 2014. Labour, however, say that this doesn't matter, because the cost of living is still high and on the up. At first glance, this might seem absurd - how can a growing economy not lead to increased living standards? The reason is actually quite simple.

   By making significant real-terms public spending cuts, Osborne has stifled inflow of money from the Treasury into the wider economy. Keynesian economic theory holds that governments should use public spending to stimulate demand in times of recession, but Thatcher threw Keynes out of the window back in 1979 and Osborne has ramped up the neoliberal experimentation to the point where even Maggie would be disgusted.

  Lack of economic stimulus. has contributed heavily to wage repression - as this graph shows, wages have increased at below the rate of inflation in every quarter since the coalition came to power bar one. It is interesting to note that the brief pre-election recovery in real wages came only after two years of fiscal stimulus packages by the Brown ministry. His chosen method of stimulus, relying heavily on quantitative easing and the bank bailouts, was far from optimal - it injected money into the finance industry but neglected other sectors - but it did actually start to show some results by early 2010. Naturally, the Tories took swift steps to shut that nonsense down immediately upon assuming power.

  With average wages so far below inflation, it is easy to see why most people just aren't feeling the so-called 'recovery'. Abstract GDP growth figures, however promising on paper, just don't mean anything to ordinary people if the money in their pocket isn't there. But if the economy is growing, and yet it isn't making its way down to us, then where the hell is it?!

  That's an easy one too. It's in the pockets of CEOs and bankers, of company shareholders and major landowners. The combined wealth of the richest 1,000 UK households jumped 15% in 2013 and now stands at almost £520 billion, with the result that the UK now has more billionaires per head than any other country. The baseline for entry into this super-elite group is now £85 million - £5 million more than before the recession. So, while the UK as a whole has only just surpassed 2008 levels and the average person is still some considerable distance from that, the richest members of our society are actually much better off than they were six years ago. 

  Some people, then, have done very well out of the global economic crash and the suffering of millions. The rest of us, meanwhile, are a little more strapped for cash - and it doesn't look like it's getting any better anytime soon. With the Tories plotting a law which will make eliminating the budget deficit by 2018 a legal requirement, more cuts are on their way, which will lead to further wage depression and thus falling demand in the economy. The current trend towards underemployment, with more and more people disappearing from unemployment stats into false self-employment or abusive zero-hours contracts, will continue and the queues outside food banks and job centres will only grow. 

  Of course, that will push up the welfare bill, sending Daily Mail readers frothing at the mouth and baying for blood. Then the government will be 'forced' to slash social security further, driving more and more people - particularly young people - onto the scrapheap. Welcome to the age of austerity politics. It hasn't worked so far, but the elitist, neoliberal mainstream parties aren't about to let a silly little thing like that stop them! They have the lower orders to crush.

Israel's Apartheid Continues

  

  Benjamin Netanyahu is at it again. He is not content, apparently, with the continuing blockade of the Gaza Strip, with the government-sponsored construction of illegal settlements on Palestinian soil, with the occupation of the State of Palestine itself in violation of any semblance of international law, and with the periodic brutality of the Israeli armed forces in their fruitless assaults on Palestine and her people. No, none of this is enough for this genocidal warmonger - now he is to make the Palestinian people second-class citizens in their own lands.

  A bill currently going through the Israeli parliament will make Jewishness a condition of the 'national rights' of Israel. For the 25% of the population who are not, including the Palestinians who live under Israeli occupation, lesser 'civil rights' will still be available - according to Netanyahu - but they will be officially, legally second-class citizens. The bill also bans the flying of the Palestinian flag and a number of other measures dressed up as counter-terrorism but in reality targeting the oppressed Palestinians.

  This bill is so blatantly ridiculous, even Netanyahu's fellow Likud party member and President of Israel Reuven Rivlin has come out against it, calling it 'unnecessary' and 'harmful' and pointing out that it will play into the hands of Israel's critics. Damn right it will: this is further evidence of the Likud government's ultra-Zionist, far-right agenda to crush the Palestinian people out of existence - or at least, out of Israel.

  The ridiculous thing is, the quickest way to remove the Palestinians from Israel, halt the majority of the inter-community violence in the region and make the bill truly unnecessary would be to recognise Palestine's sovereignty and accept the two-state solution - but that is something Netanyahu will not do. Meanwhile, Palestinians - who  have always been treated as second-class citizens in Israel - will not take this new legal confirmation of their status lightly. One commentator, Abu Azzan Saud, went to far as to call this 'the beginning of the third intifada'. 

  So, more deaths to come, then, on the back of a law allegedly designed to reduce the killing. Welcome to Netanyahu's apartheid state.

Education, Education, Education: Aspiration Tax

Tuition fees do not help fund higher education - they are a punitive tax on aspiration

The Genesis of Tuition Fees

  It is a fundamental principle of socialism that education should be provided equally and freely to all. It is a fundamental principle of neoliberalism that aspiration should not be taxed. And yet the Labour governments of 1997-2010 broke both of these principles - the socialist one they claim as their heritage, and the neoliberal one which they adopted under Tony Blair in a bid for power.

  How did they do this, you ask? Simple - Labour first introduced, and then trebled, tuition fees for University courses. Before 1998, you did not pay for your education - it would be to go against both the post-war social democratic consensus and the post-Thatcherite neoliberal consensus for such a thing to happen. John Major first floated the idea of alternative sources of higher education funding, but it was the Blair/Brown New Labour project which finally implemented the policy.

  The Coalition government, of course, are now most linked in the minds of the British people with tuition fees - as well they might be. The spectacular way in which the Liberal Democrat promise to scrap tuition fees entirely was broken is the stuff of political legend; what is even more worrying, though, is that the Conservative party wanted to remove the cap on fees altogether, leaving the UK higher education system completely open to market forces in a way even the USA cannot match (not all American colleges are for-profit institutions). As it stands, students are now saddled with a £9,000-a-year debt.


A Tax on Aspiration

  It is pretty clear to see how tuition fees violate the principle of free and equal access to education - in short, it makes education no longer free and restricts access to it on the basis of wealth (or willingness to accrue large amounts of long-term debt). It is somewhat less straightforward to see how such a policy constitutes an aspiration tax, but all it requires is a moment's consideration.

  Education can be seen as a way of improving one's chances in life: it is no secret that even fairly mundane jobs these days often require a degree, and access to many professions - law, teaching, the civil service etc. - is almost impossible without one. Possession of a higher education degree, then, can improve your quality of life quite considerably; it is, in short, a key to what is for many a lifestyle they aspire to. Simply put, someone with a degree earns on average 85% more than someone with only GCSEs, while someone with only A Levels earns just 15% more. A degree, in the brutal monetary terms in which we are forced to see it, equals earning potential.

  Slapping a £27,000 price tag (more if it's a longer course, plus the cost of paying back your student loan, plus interest, plus other costs - the true cost of getting a degree is estimated around £100,000) on this potential makes it harder for people to access. Though loans are of course available, taking on that kind of debt is a terrifying prospect for many young people. It puts them off furthering their education, and application levels - despite having risen this year - are still below the level they were before the tuition fee hike. Consider that the economy has 'recovered' during that time, and population has grown by three-quarters of a million, and this is an alarming thing.

  So, tuition fees are a method of imposing what is in essence a tax on the aspiration of young people to improve their lives. They also discourage degrees which do not translate directly into a high-earning job at the end of it, such as finance or law - in order to pay off this huge debt, students are leaving behind courses in the arts and humanities in favour of the physical and social sciences. The true purpose of learning - the acquisition of knowledge - has been supplanted by bald monetary calculations.

  It should also be noted that tuition fees are not equal across the UK - in England, they are capped at £9,000; in Scotland, they do not exist; in Wales, grants exist to cover the first £5,315; in Northern Ireland, they are £3,685. Even more ridiculous, EU students in Scotland and Wales receive the same tuition fees as Scottish/Welsh nationals; whilst English and Northern Irish students have to pay. This patchwork system of fees means that the English in particular are grossly discriminated against.


What's Their Motivation?

  So, why would the establishment parties want to impose such an aspiration tax? It isn't for the economic benefit to the country - it is estimated that the average student won't actually pay back 43% of their loan - they'll just be saddled with a huge debt for 30 years - and the increase to £9,000 will actually end up losing the government money. Furthermore, Higher Education in total costs £27.9 billion a year; the UK spends £45.6 billion a year on defence. What would YOU consider more important?

  No, the real reason behind the aspiration tax is an attempt to prevent students from furthering themselves. It stands to reason: knowledge is power, and the ruling elite are quite fond of having all the power, thank you very much. A degree also, as we have discussed, translates directly into economic benefit - and as we know, thanks to the neoliberal deregulation of the financial sector, there's only so much money to go around. It is in the interests of those who have it to prevent others from acquiring it - hence the aspiration tax.

  Overall, tuition fees are a policy designed only to hurt students. The recent rise is going to end up actually costing the government £5 billion a year anyway; why not just scrap it? The Treasury saves money, students aren't faced with mountains of debt and education might actually come to be seen as a priority again. 

The REAL Problem With Europe

Most criticism of the EU is right-wing vitriol - but there are real problems with the Brussels machine

  Europe-bashing has become mainstream within British politics. UKIP have succeeded in driving the political debate sharply to the right on immigration, with the result that a recent ICM poll put immigration as the number two issue in the British political mindset - just four points behind the NHS. This has fuelled a backlash against the EU - now, even the Europhile Liberal Democrats are joining the assault against Brussels.

Right-Wing Pet Hates

  Criticism of the EU from the right-wing political establishment focuses around what is really two points - freedom of movement and human rights laws. Freedom of movement is a fundamental principle behind the European Single Market - something which David Cameron is otherwise very much in favour of - and freedom of movement of labour cannot be separated from the other three freedoms - goods, services and capital - which are essential for allowing an integrated European economy. 

  The four freedoms are also, incidentally, something which derive from the Single European Act of 1986 - a treaty which was in large part the brainchild of Margaret Thatcher, something which is a never-ending source of amusement for me as the Thatcherite parties (the Tories and UKIP) try to backpedal on one of the most important achievements of their predecessor's premiership.

  On the subject of human rights, any attempt to withdraw from the European Convention would be inconceivable. Not only is the Convention itself another fundamentally British invention - Winston Churchill's this time; not looking good for the Tories, is it? - but it would be virtually impossible to remove European human rights protections without replacing them with essentially identical British protections. The alternative is to cast in our lot with countries like Belarus and Saudi Arabia - something which no British government could do without inspiring general outrage.

What About the Rest?

  Beyond these two non-problems, the right-wing political establishment and media seem to be pretty happy with the EU as is. Yes, there are periodical requests for more money - such as that for another €2.1 billion which hit the newspapers on the 24th of October - which elicit indignation from the supporters of so-called Tory austerity, but these are fleeting objections. More or less, mainstream politicians couldn't care less about the rest of the EU's problems.

  But there are some real issues with the way Europe works. For starters, consider that the EU is a fundamentally undemocratic organisation. The European Parliament is the only EU body which is actually elected and, despite receiving new powers under the 2008 Treaty of Lisbon, is still very much the weakest EU institution. The Conservative Party, it should be pointed out,

actually opposed even these limited powers to Parliament - they would rather appointed institutions like the Commission and Coreper (the EU civil service). Some areas of policy, such as taxation and justice policy, still aren't subject to any kind of democratic scrutiny at all. Instead of wasting time attacking the basic principles of the EU, the changing of which will be neither possible nor beneficial, why don't the mainstream parties focus on this absurd lack of democracy?

  Perhaps the greatest example of the anti-democratic nature of the EU at work is the TTIP corporate power grab. This is a free trade treaty currently being negotiated, in secret, between representatives of the EU and the USA. The current proposals for the treaty include 'Investor State Dispute Settlements', allowing American corporations to sue the British government in secretive, closed tribunals for any action they take which might impact their profit margins. This would not only make renationalisation of key public infrastructure - supported by over 65% of the British public - impossible, it would also open up existing public services such as the NHS to American corporate buyouts. If the government resisted, they would be subject to legal action and crippling damages payments.

  TTIP has the support of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat Parties and even UKIP supported it until recently - abandoning the idea as soon as it became clear that there was public opposition to it, another fine example of principled UKIP policy-making. Only the Green Party opposed this dangerous treaty from the outset, along with a grassroots campaign mustered by 38 degrees (sign their petition against TTIP here). This is a clear sign if one was needed that the mainstream political parties don't really care about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, just clinging on to their own positions of power.

Conclusions

  The European Union was a fantastic idea which has gone badly wrong. Anti-democratic organisational features and economic incompetence have led what should have been a wonderful experiment in international peace and co-operation into a deepening crisis, while TTIP threatens the very economic sovereignty of its members. UKIP's solution to the problems of Europe is to jump ship; my preference would always be to push for reform first, but what is clear is that the establishment parties will not tackle the real issues with Europe, so obsessed are they with chasing UKIP's right-wing narrative over immigration and human rights laws. As usual, it's up to us - the people - to force the idiots and self-serving careerists who rule us to take the right course. Don't hold your breath.

Politicians: They Won't Change Unless We Make Them

For decades, and particularly since the expenses scandal of 2009, politicians have grown steadily more despised - but why should they change?

  An ICM poll, published in the Guardian on October the 13th, gave us some interesting information on the state of politics in October 2014. The party polling itself was fairly standard fare - the only real point to note is the expected 5-point increase in UKIP's share in the wake of Douglas Carswell's election in Clacton - but more interesting is the data on the leaders' personal ratings, shown below:

  One point to raise straightaway is the absence of two individuals: Natalie Bennett, leader of the Green Party (expected, due to the outrageous anti-Green media bias) and Nick Clegg. Clegg's absence is particularly telling - it demonstrates the total lack of regard given to the now-decimated Liberal Democrats. But more important still is the data itself.

  Notice the numbers on the graphs. It will not escape your notice that they are all significantly below zero. Now, it is clear that certain leaders have strengths in certain areas: Farage leads significantly on perceived ability to understand the public and on perceived honesty, while Miliband is clearly ahead on looking after the interests of the many over the few. 

  Farage's party, then, will use these data to improve their anti-establishment credentials; Labour will (cautiously, so as to avoid cries of 'evil socialism) capitalise on the sense that they, not UKIP, are the true party of the working classes. Cameron will do his best not to mention them at all. But none of these approaches get to the real heart of the matter - and why would they? It is in the interests of all the neoliberal parties not to raise this question. So It's going to have to be me.

  The question is this: Why are our politicians so awful that we are having to differentiate between different degrees of negative publicity just to draw out some meaningful comparison?

  At the end of the day, it shouldn't matter that Ed Miliband is only 10 points below par at looking after the working classes while Farage and Cameron are 20 points below, because the key thing is this: They are ALL seen as terrible. Even 'anti-establishment', flavour-of-the-month UKIP has a leader seen as generally incapable across these three fairly broad categories. The fact that one leader might be slightly less bad than the other two should be irrelevant. The only reason it isn't is because the leaders are more or less identical, so the minutiae become suddenly vital differentiators.

  Why, then, do our political masters get away with being seen as universally useless? Sadly, the answer is because we let them. This most recent poll makes one thing clear - despite seeing their leaders (two potential Prime Ministers and a potential Deputy Prime Minister) as incompetent, 80% of the population who state they are likely to vote in May 2015 are planning to vote for either Labour, UKIP or the Conservatives. Add in the Lib Dems - whose neoliberal policies make them virtually identical to the other three, despite their current disfavour - and that's 91%.

  Even worse than this overwhelming lemming-style rush towards parties which these data prove we have no enthusiasm for is the number of people planning not to vote at all. The same poll shows that 23% of people rate themselves as 50% certain or less to vote, with 10% saying already that they definitely won't. Results from past elections show that, on average, around a third of voters do not vote on polling day. I've spoken at length about voter apathy before, so i won't wax lyrical about it here, but this also feeds into the overall issue.

  And that issue is this: Politicians won't change, they won't become any better than their current abysmal low, until we make them. And, much as Russell brand would have you believe otherwise, refusing to participate - tempting as it is - will not do that. Neither will voting for parties who espouse the same hypocritical, neoliberal-authoritarian post-Thatcherite political consensus as the Tories - and that includes UKIP as well as Labour and the Lib Dems. 

  The only way to force a change is to get involved. Campaign on issues which animate you, which make your blood boil; speak out when things occur in the world which are unfair; vote when polling day comes around, and for the Greens or the nationalists or any other party which challenges the status quo. But don't limit yourself just to voting - Brand is right about that: the once-every-five-years electoral ballot is the establishment's way of keeping us quiet in between. Fight for the things you deserve and for what you believe in, and maybe - just maybe - we might get some politicians who aren't universally reviled.

  One can but hope.

UKIP - The Purple Menace?

Does UKIP's performance in Clacton and Heywood & Middleton mean the 'big three' are in serious trouble?

Carswell's Triumph

  Douglas Carswell's crushing victory in the Clacton-on-Sea by-election should come as a surprise to precisely no-one. The seat was described as the most-UKIP friendly in the country, Carswell had a huge personal following - demonstrated by the mass exodus from the local Tory association to his UKIP branch - and the UKIP propaganda machine has been working overtime ever since the by-election was called.

  However, the sheer scale of the victory - 59.7%, a rare majority, with the jump from 0% (UKIP did not previously contest Clacton) the biggest in by-election history - should of course be noted by anyone with an interest in the growing right-wing force. As birthday presents go, this one is probably not David Cameron's best. Carswell did not just beat the Tories, he thrashed them, and such a result will be invaluable to UKIP come 2015.


Miliband's Nightmare

  Of course, Clacton was not the only by-election result to be announced during the night - Heywood and Middleton also voted, and they voted to keep Labour in power. However, UKIP came deadly close, with just 617 votes between the two. The Labour victory is important for the party - failure to hold the seat would have been another nail in the coffin of Miliband's leadership - but the significance of this close call is huge. Farage has long proclaimed that UKIP has a broad-based appeal, attracting defectors from each of the traditional 'big three', and the near-success of the party in this northern, working-class constituency - seat of former Labour Prime Minister Jim Callaghan, no less - seems to confirm that.

  Of course, the Labour party line is that the UKIP surge was driven mostly by the collapse of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat votes, and the nose-dive in turnout to 36.2%. This is quite probable, but that does not excuse the Labour failure to capitalise on this collapse. Anti-UKIP tactical voting should have lent weight to the only party in the seat with a reasonable chance of defeating them, and yet the margin of victory remained pathetically small. Some UKIPpers are calling for a recount, and the party's candidate John Bickley stated that “I’m under no illusions. Another two or three days and we would have won this.” Such a delay would have put the poll in the wake of Clacton and the UKIP landslide there - Bickley is probably right.


Same Old Party?

  Winning an elected MP for the first time, and their second ever UKIP MP overall, will lend a legitimacy to the party that their 24 MEPs and 370 Councillors could not do. So Westminster-focused is British politics in the 21st Century, only a UKIPper in the House of Commons would do to persuade some sections of the establishment to take them seriously. Despite Conservative HQ's line today that people will not vote for 'alternative' parties come 2015, even the most traditionally self-confident Tory must now admit that UKIP are a threat.

  The question is, what do UKIP represent - and is it something the British people will ever vote for en masse? The label 'fascist' has been applied to the party in the past and, whilst it is an exaggeration, there are some fascistic elements to the organisation. They can be seen in the party's de facto English nationalism; in the veneration of a single charismatic individual as leader; in the party's corporate backing; and in the appropriation of the odd traditionally left-wing policy in order to garner populist support.

  Glimpses of UKIP's more unsavoury aspect are also revealed by those of its members less willing to toe the party line. Though the sagas of Bongo Bongo Land and storm-causing gay marriage are beginning to recede into the past now, these kinds of people are still present in the party - just masked by an increasingly effective and media-supported propaganda machine. The fact that the blatantly and pathetically prejudiced Alan Craig, former leader of the hard-right Christian People's Alliance, has defected to UKIP and campaigned for them in Clacton - this a man who equates equal marriage with child abuse - and that UKIP has defended him demonstrates quite clearly that, however much it may have appeared to move on, the party is still stuck exactly where it was ten years ago.

  
  Will UKIP do well in 2015? Almost certainly. Will they increase their vote share? Undoubtedly. Will they pick up a handful of extra seats, the better with which to harass the Tories in Parliament? Quite probably. But will they ever become a force which the people of the UK will select to represent them on a national basis? I doubt it. Not without quite a considerable reformation of the party and a purge of those less salubrious elements within its structure.

  Meanwhile, are they a threat to the 'big three'? The by-elections of the 9th of October tell us, absolutely. And, much as I despise UKIP itself, upsetting the cosy establishment apple-cart can't be an entirely bad thing.

The Brooks Newmark Sting - Journalistic Integrity?

  First things first, I'm glad that Brooks Newmark MP - Conservative Member of Parliament for Braintree - has resigned as Minister for Civil Society. Having stated that, as the minister responsible for charities, his plan was to 'keep... [them] out of the realms of politics' and that they 'should just stick to their knitting', there was absolutely no question that this man was unfit for office. 

  Bad enough that the Tories have already steered their charity censoring 'Gagging Bill' through Parliament, with the Bill - ostensibly aimed at lobbying organisations but in fact doing very little to contain the worst offenders - now an Act of Parliament (incidentally, there is another Bill before Parliament aimed at repealing this repulsive law - please consider writing to your MP to vote for it). Newmark's comments, in the wake of this outrage, merely drove home the contempt in which the Tory elite hold the populace, and the charitable organisations who are among the few groups with any power acting on their behalf. Yes, Newmark had to go.

  But not like this.

  The idiocy of the man in falling for the oldest trick in the book - random sexy stranger sends alluring photos and flirts; because THAT'S likely to happen to a 56-year-old Tory MP  - is without question. And, frankly, I quite enjoy the panic that losing an MP and a Minister on the same day must have inflicted on the Tory high command. But, in the end, isn't it his business? Why are we in a situation whereby the most appalling comments about the organisations with which it is part of a minister's job to liaise are not grounds for resignation, but a little ill-advised cyber-flirtation with another human being is? 

  It is, then, a matter of the public's own warped sense of morality - one which years of neoliberalism has stripped of most positive qualities, but which still holds on to good old-fashioned  social conservatism - which has allowed this curious and, honestly, disappointing dichotomy to arise. But more than that, it is a matter of journalistic integrity. Or rather, of the complete lack of journalistic integrity shown by one Alex Wickham.

  Wickham writes for Paul Staines' Guido Fawkes blog, as well as doing freelance work for other newspapers. His use of the photographs of two young women (which were, I might add, obtained and then widely published without consent) to ensnare Newmark in this way was reprehensible. Ignore the fact that this man was obviously unfit for ministerial office, because Wickham would not have cared either way either, and you are left with the destruction of a man's career over a few moments of indiscretion. 

  The following are clear: Newmark should have resigned weeks earlier, taking care of the problem; Wickham should not have stooped to these lengths just to secure a story; and the Sunday Mirror certainly should not have published this sensationalist nonsense (but then, it is the Sunday Mirror; we shouldn't expect miracles). None of these things happened, and thus the common public opinion - that politicians are without scruples and journalists are little better - is, sadly, once again borne out.

Here We Go Again

  MPs in the House of Commons yesterday voted by 524 to 43 in favour of UK airstrikes against IS targets in Iraq. Ladies and gentlemen, here we go again. Barack Obama last week became the fourth successive US President to declare on live television an American bombing campaign in the Iraq region; now, David Cameron joins him in declaring military action in the failing state just three years after the last British forces withdrew from the country.

  War in Iraq seems to have become something of a hobby for the Anglo-American military-industrial complex. This time, though, we are not fighting the iron-fisted tyrant that was Saddam Hussein - instead, the enemy is a group of ultra-radical fundamentalist Islamists; a group whose interpretation of the Qur'an combins the worst evils of the early campaigns of bloodshed emanating from seventh-century Medina and more modern Wa'habist ideologies of an ultra-strict religious conservatism and adherence to a twisted brand of Sharia law. A target, therefore, one might think worthy of Britain's aggression? Perhaps.

  The problem is, though, so much of the current problem is derived directly from the Iraq War of 2003 and the earlier Gulf War of 1990. Despite the protestations of senior government figures to the contrary, blowback from overseas theatres of war is a real and present problem, and the history of modern British and American involvement in the Middle East is scarred with it. From the Afghan campaigns of the 1980s, which kickstarted the rise of the Taliban, to the brutal murder of Drummer Lee Rigby last May - whose perpetrators explicitly stated their aim as revenge for slaughtered Muslims in Iraq - the US-UK alliance is dogged by bloody reprisals against their people for the governments' actions abroad.

The territory controlled by the IS as of 22/09/14

  The success of the Islamic State, formerly an al-Qaeda offshoot, is based to a not inconsiderable degree on the violent actions of Western powers in the Middle East over the last half-century or so. The Arab Spring may have destabilised the region enough for ISIS to emerge in Syria, but it has been the justified hatred of Western interventionism which has helped to fuel its transformation from one of many small rebel groups set against the Assad regime to a de facto independent country straddling the borders of two of the regions former powers, and it is the weakness and sectarianism of Iraq in the wake of the Alliance's disastrous earlier invasion which has allowed the armies of Islamist extremism to run roughshod across the lands once home to the greatest civilisations on Earth.

  So, here we go, back into Iraq. So far the UK - along with the other European powers participating in the action (Denmark and Belgium) - are loathe to expand operations into Syria, but now that the USA has taken that step, in defiance of Assad's protestations of illegality, it can only be a matter of time. This war will be one without borders, one which Cameron has said could take three years but which could easily last five times that. Another war in an unstable area, and what will we be left with at the end of it? Two shattered states, a Middle East infected with a stronger poison of religious extremism than ever before and greater and greater hatred for the 'Great Satan' of Western intervention.

  And that's assuming we even win.

It's All Over - Except It's Not

  Well, there we go. That's that, as they say. Scotland, land of haggis and whisky (of which I'm fond) and of bagpipes and tartan (of which I'm not so fond) has voted in what was probably the defining moment in recent British political history. The result, a 10-point win for the No campaign, on the back of a turnout of 84.6%, is not the vast thrashing of the Independence campaign which was predicted when the referendum was called, but it is a significant enough margin to settle the question for some time.

  But, I'm afraid, that's not quite the end of it. In fact, not by a long shot. It has been clear for some years, and most especially for the last fortnight or so, that the status quo simply will not be acceptable to Scotland for any longer. The fallout from the referendum will send shockwaves through Scottish politics, and it will profoundly affect the rest of the Union too. The Scots may have gone for No, but this emphatically doesn't mean No Change.


Scottish Devolution

  With the current Devolution plans under the Scotland Act 2012 lay out some powers which will be transferred to Scotland over the next two years. These include a replacement of UK Stamp Duty by a Scottish version, the ability for the Scottish Government to borrow from the capital markets and issue government bonds and - crucially - the cutting of the UK Income Tax in Scotland to 10%, with the Scottish Government responsible for setting a separate rate to make up the shortfall, which would allow Scotland to vary overall Income Tax rates from the UK standard of 20%. 

  Let's be clear, these powers are to go to the Scots, regardless of what happens over the next few months. However, there are now proposals on the table for new Scottish powers from each of the three main Westminster parties. These new powers will be needed to assuage the demand for greater autonomy which 1.6 million votes for independence demonstrates. There are differences between the parties on what these powers should be, however.

  Labour Proposals   [SOURCE: Scottish Labour Devolution Commission - Executive Summary]

• The Scottish Parliament to be made a permanent feature of the UK constitution
• The Scottish Parliament to have administrative authority over Scottish Parliament elections
• The Scottish Government to raise approx. 40% of its own tax revenues
• UK Income Tax rate in Scotland to be reduced to 5% rather than 10%
• The Scottish Government to be able to vary different Income Tax bands by different amounts
• Retention of the Barnett Formula for the Scottish block spending grant
• Housing Benefit to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament
• Greater powers for the Island Communities - Orkney, Shetland and Eilean Siar

  Conservative Proposals   [SOURCE: Commission on the Future Governance of Scotland]

• Income Tax entirely devolved to the Scottish Parliament
• Official Scottish Fiscal Commission to be established
• Possible devolution of Housing Benefit
• Possible ability for the Scottish Parliament to supplement UK social security payments
• Retention of the Barnett Formula for the Scottish block spending grant

  Liberal Democrat Proposals   [SOURCE: Federalism: the best future for Scotland]

• Power of Initiation, allowing the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments to request actions of one another
• Devolution of Income Tax to the Scottish Parliament
• Devolution of Inheritance Tax and Capital Gains Tax
• The proceeds of Scottish corporation tax to be assigned to the Scottish Government
• Retention of the Barnett Formula for the Scottish block spending grant until a new formula is agreed

  The rhetoric generally is that Labour's proposals are the least extensive, but this is mainly focusing on the slightly weaker offer on Income Tax. In fact, overall it is clear that it is the traditionally Unionist Tories who have made what I would consider the least attractive offer. For a new devolution settlement to work, though, all three parties will have to agree a package of powers, which will then have to be agreed with the SNP. The man in charge of this process is the Lord Robert Smith, Baron of Kelvin, who also ran the Glasgow Commonwealth Games earlier this year. A White Paper is planned for January. Watch this space...

Winners and Losers

  The big loser of this referendum has been Alex Salmond. Despite cutting No's lead from 22 points two months ago to just 10 in the referendum, Salmond has announced his decision to step down both as SNP leader and First Minister of Scotland in November. This leaves the way open for his popular deputy, Nicola Sturgeon, long tipped as his sucessor to take the reins of power. With so long under Salmond, this could prove a real shake-up for the Scottish Nationals.

  The biggest sigh of relief was likely breathed by David Cameron, for whom a Yes vote could have meant a vote of no confidence in the commons and the loss of his premiership. Ed Miliband, too, was likely a little anxious in the run-up to this vote, as a failure for Better Together would likely have been seen as a failure of Labour to successfully challenge the SNP - and thus a damning indictment of his London-centric leadership. Both major party leaders were staring down the barrel of a gun pointed straight at their careers; the No vote has saved them. For now.

  The star of the show, though, has undoubtedly been Gordon Brown. Alistair Darling's leadership of Better Together has been criticised for his lack of charisma and failure to stand up to Salmond, but Brown's fiery eve-of-referendum speech appeared to more than make up for that. It is hard to say just how much his intervention contributed to the eventual success of the No campaign, but calls for the ex-Prime Minister to return to front-line politics after more than four years - perhaps as leader of Scottish Labour - demonstrate how much public opinion he has won by speaking out.

What About the English?

  Almost as soon as the No result was clear, prominent English politicians began their calls for English devolution to match the Scots. Both David Cameron and Ed Miliband mentioned the so-called West Lothian Question in speeches today - Why should Scottish MPs, with significant and growing powers over Scotland now in the hands of the Scottish Parliament, continue to vote on English matters at Westminster? - with Nigel Farage among the many others taking up the cry.

  The Conservative backbenches are pushing for 'English votes on English laws' within the current Westminster Parliament, a solution which would settle the question in the short term. However, Labour - who would find it difficult to get approval for their English agenda under such a system, given their partial reliance on Scotland and Wales for their Parliamentary majorities - are going to take some convincing. Meanwhile, the more interesting - and controversial - question of an English executive, complete with ministerial departments and a possible First Minister of England, has also been floated. Whatever happens, one thing is clear - England will not be satisfied with the status quo either.

  It is clear, then, that a No vote in Scotland does not mean that the leaders of the Westminster parties can rest on their laurels. Independence may have been rejected, but change is coming to the UK - and not before time, either. 


[NOTE: A previous version of this article stated Alex Salmond was unlikely to step down as SNP leader. He announced his intention to do so while I was finishing writing this piece. That'll teach me to make predictions]