Serving the community

Louis Connor

09/12/09

MPs’ have thrown their support behind a new Demos publication, Service Nation, proposing the introduction of a new National Civic Service for young people. The Service would be a mandatory scheme seeing young people compelled to undertake small periods of voluntary work in an attempt to improve their employability skills and serving their local community. To fund the scheme, Demos proposes to charge interest for the first time, above inflation, on student loan repayments

Charging interest on student loans to fund a new national civic service is another example of burdening young people with enormous amounts of debt before they enter employment, and increasing the longevity of their debt. Only after years of employment will one reach a point where their wage puts them within touching distance of paying off their student loan. Furthermore, taking into account new sources of debt which young people are bound to accumulate through starting a family or taking out a mortgage, the idea of increasing interest on student loan repayments is pretty absurd.

Sonia Sodha, co-author of the report, justifies the increase in interest rates on student loan repayments by arguing that “those who have gained most must also give something back”. What have the thousands of unemployed graduates gained for free from their University education, which they need to pay back, beyond their mountain of debt? Students already give something back to the tune of an estimated £23,000 for their University education in the first place. Further, many graduates currently find themselves being exploited by employers who are taking advantage of a pool of eager and talented graduates by making them work for free or for minimum wage at best. In return, these graduates work their arses off for between 3 and 6 months in the vague hope that their may be an ‘opportunity’ of full-time salaried employment at the end of it all.

Furthermore, Sonia Sodha also claims that charging interest on student loan repayments would “be a fair levy on those benefiting from state-subsidised university education”. Does she forget that students who are, and have been, in receipt of means-tested grants and loans still leave University with a mountain of personal debt equal, and often larger, in size to their non-means tested counterparts? Further, poorer students are already affected by the snobbery which affects our education system as a whole. In terms of University education, this is often categorised into three tiers of ‘worthiness’; 1. Oxbridge, 2. Redbrick, and 3. Old polytechnics. Poorer students who invariably gravitate towards the less ‘worthy’ universities already have their employability prospects diminished without being penalised through extra charges on their student debts.

The Mob Ruled
Louis Connor (03/11/09)

Nick Griffins appearance on Question Time was controlled by mob rule, wherby the tactics of a racist were deployed against a racist – prodding, provoking and inciting that which is different and un-orthodox. The BNP were not tackled as a party fixated on race.  Lets either facilitate proper debate or open up our political sytem to individuals and parties who can.

So far the response to Nick Griffins appearance on Question Time has been dominated buy a mixture of fierce attacks against Griffin and a focus on Griffinesque soundbites such as his bizarre response to a question posed regarding his views on the Holocaust; “’I cannot explain why I used to say those things,”. Yet Nick Griffins appearance on Question Time was indicative of our selective, un-open political process in which we treat what should have been an opportunity to expose the BNP for their lack of political understanding of key issues, into a forum whereby the mob ruled; prodding, provoking and teasing for a reaction in the same way I imagine a group of racists would do to someone seen as ‘different’.

The BNP, and characters such as Nick Griffin, should have no place in serious political discourse. This isn’t just because their policies are blatantly racist, but also because they are political lightweights, unable to comment on issues such as the recession and the postal strike without linking back to the topic of race. The BBC, and our political establishment (since the panel on Question Time are meant to represent our political elite), would have upheld their integrity if Griffin was treated like any other member of the panel. The programme should have followed the format expected of Question Time whereby four or five topics are addressed in which members of the panel give their views on each and facilitate debate amongst themselves and the audience. Instead, from the word go, the panel, Dimbleby included, and the audience turned into a seething mob who unleashed attack after attack on Nick Griffin as an individual, not on the British National Party per se. The result? Nick Griffin as an individual comes off as a political lightweight, but the BNP as a party are by no means discredited. Indeed, a YouGov poll the following Saturday revealed that 22% of voters would “seriously consider” voting for the BNP in a future local, national, or European election.

We all know how vile Nick Griffin is, and we all know that he has, in the past, denied the extent of the Holocaust and has a number of other racist comments attached to his name, all of which have been documented and all of which are accessible by simply Googling Griffins name. Why then did the majority of his appearance on Question Time follow this course; “Mr Griffin, I have here document A which shows you said X about Y”, to which Griffin would reply; “I didn’t say those things”, or “I have changed my mind now”. Quite frankly, I thought the programme was pathetic for accommodating a mob atmosphere whereby Nick Griffin was prodded and provoked in the hope that he would say something vile and disgusting, like “Ok, I admit it, I only like white people, and I only want white people in Britain”. If Griffin had been engaged in the topical issues of the day such as the postal strike, the recession, or the upcoming Copenhagen summit, we would have seen how politically incapable he is as an individual, but more importantly the BNP as a political party would have been shown up as politically incapable. One can assume that if Griffin was engaged in such a way that he would have somehow, bizarrely, linked the economic crisis to the issue of race, the postal strike to the issue of race, and even the environmental crisis to the issue of race – “its those brown leaves that are the problem, theyre steeling all the green leaves trees”.

Resentment for the BNP is strong. Unfortunately, they are well positioned in areas where our old mass industries have now disappeared, and where immigration into these areas – increasing competition for jobs – has created the perfect breeding ground for the BNP’s racist policies. We should counter the BNP by one of two tactics – preferably the second. Firstly, we provide a platform, such as Griffins appearance on Question Time, where the BNP are engaged in political debate on a range of issues – showing them as a party incapable of commenting on any issue without discussing race. Secondly, we alter our political system whereby individuals feel let down and un-represented by our three main political parties, and create a more proportional system. This would open up the political floor to new parties able to represent the views of people from poor communities competing for jobs without reverting to inflammatory rhetoric, policy absence and racism. In any case, you do not counter a convicted racist and leader of a racist party by engaging in the tactics of a racist – prodding, provoking and inciting that which is un-orthodox and different.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Labour Party R.I.P – Former Party of Government.

Louis Connor (19/10/09)

The election of David Cameron as Prime Minister, coupled with his plans to reduce the size of Parliament by 10%, and the pressure on the devolved budgets will all conspire to increase the momentum behind calls from the SNP to hold a referendum on Scottish independence sometime in Spring/Summer 2010. A smaller Parliament in Westminster, and the loss of crucial support in Scotland following a ‘Yes’ vote for independence, could turn Gordon Brown into the last Labour Prime Minister. His only chance to prevent political oblivion is to hold a referendum on electoral reform.

According to the pressure group Compass in their report The Last Labour Government, Scottish independence would strip Labour of 41 seats in Westminster. In addition, if Cameron, once elected, goes ahead with reducing the size of Parliament, Compass predicts Labour to come off worst with reductions affecting Labour strongholds in Wales and the industrial heartlands. They predict this would take away a further 45 Labour seats in Westminster. When one considers the bleak predictions for Labour at the next election, the threat of further reductions to a paltry electoral performance would render the Party un-electable. It would face either joining with the Liberal Democrats, in a move reminiscent of the creation of the SDP in 1981, or swinging the Party further to the right in an attempt to break into traditional Conservative strongholds. What is most likely to happen is for political in-fighting to ensue between old-school left wingers and the ‘last line’ of New Labour modernisers. I wrote last week how this would be disastrous for the Party.

The potential eradication of one of our main political parties, and the suggestion that electoral defeat for them would hand the Conservatives a long term in government on the back of Scottish independence and the reduction in size of Parliament, highlights the fundamental need in this country to change the electoral system, making it more representative, and opening it up to new political voices. It would be scandalous to hand a Conservative government a mandate to govern for at least one, probably two, possibly three, and potentially four or five terms when they lack the long-term vision, and more fundamentally, policy depth to warrant more than a single term. A lack of choice in our political system should not excuse the British electorate to half-heartedly elect and re-elect the only capable Party to govern. Instead, the political establishment must increase the choice in our political system and the electorate should pile the pressure on Brown to hold a referendum on electoral reform at the next election.

This piece is not a rallying cry from a Labour supporter desperately trying to suggest possible strategies to make the party electable come election time. Rather, I use the example for being indicative of an electoral system which is un-representative, over-centralised in the hands of a few, and fails to offer the electorate meaningful representation.

Changing the electoral system now would open up our political system to a range of political opinions that reflect the diverse and complex nation that we are. Some may harp that doing so will let in loonies like the BNP but my answer is simple, ‘it won’t’. A more representative electoral system would encourage our established parties to open up and would also encourage the establishment of new parties who are better suited than the BNP, for example, to represent what are fair concerns of white individuals from deprived and neglected areas of the UK.

Brown must hold a referendum on a more representative political system at the next election, if not for the good of politics in this country, then for the good of the Labour Party as well.

Accountable to the people, representative of the people.

Louis Connor

Bar the current fixation on spending cuts and whether they are going be ‘kind’, ‘savage’ or ‘sustainable’, when did Parliamentary reform slip off the political agenda? When the MPs’ expenses scandal was unravelling one could be forgiven for thinking we were on the cusp of wholesale constitutional, electoral and parliamentary reform. Yet following mild suggestions from Brown in support of Alternative Vote and hints from Cameron for the introduction of ‘citizens’ initiatives’, parliamentary reform has slipped off the political agenda. In its place has come the tepid discussion of spending cuts; of ‘we will cut sustainably, whilst they will cut savagely’. John Bercow, our newly elected speaker of the house, gave a speech on the matter of Parliamentary reform last week to the Hansard Society. His speech received about as much coverage in the press as the proverbial cat stuck up a tree. If we are to avoid the political quagmire that was the expenses scandal and the disintegration of our un-regulated financial system then we must push for a political system which is more accountable to the people and representative of the people.

Bercow makes an astonishing claim during his speech; “all of the main party leaders, the Leader of the House and her Shadow, and those MPs outside of the main parties, are publicly committed to reform as never before. This is hugely welcome and it presents a superb opportunity for serious and significant change”. Is that so? If “committed to reform” relates to Browns’ suggestion, not commitment, for a move towards AV – it alone only guaranteeing MPs’ are elected by 50% of their constituents – and Eric Pickles discussion of “fair votes” – meaning the gerrymandering of constituency boundaries – at the Conservative Party Conference, then yes, Bercow is correct to observe our MPs as being “committed to reform”. But if we take reform to equate to the wholesale change of an antiquated, pompous, un-representative and un-accountable political system then our MPs are far from being “committed to reform”. Instead we find our three main political parties distancing themselves from real reform when each sense possible power, or at least an increase in their share of power, by playing the First-Past-The-Post ‘winner takes all’ electoral system. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.

Clearly Parliamentary reform is on the political agenda, but the political establishment is far from “committed” to it. Maybe Bercow sees himself as a bastion for reform when the crux of his speech at the Hansard Society boils down to reforming the role of……..wait for it……the backbench MP! Certainly he has a point when he recommends more backbench scrutiny of ministers and Private Members’ Bill being discussed mid-week instead of being discarded to Friday. But clearly when trust in our political system is at an all time low, reform must be radical and wide-ranging. Sir Christopher Kelly, the Chair of The Committee on Standards in Public Life, has been charged with reviewing the MPs’ expenses scandal and will release his report later this month. But one is living in hope if he thinks the report will make recommendations that will radically change our political system. Instead, it is left to actors outside the political establishment, in pressure groups such as Unlock Democracy and campaign movements such as The Vote for a Change Campaign, to set the reformist agenda. Far from calls for greater backbench MP powers, these actors are suggesting the introduction of primaries to elect candidates for Parliament, the establishment of Citizens’ Conventions to help construct a written constitution, and holding a referendum in tandem with the General Election regarding electoral reform, not on AV, but on Proportional Representation. These latter suggestions constitute a truly reformist agenda and are indicative of someone who is “committed to reform”. It is a shame our political establishment has not been galvanized by the initial impetus for reform following the MPs’ scandal. Instead it is left to actors outside the political establishment to set the meaningful reformist agenda and push for a political system which is accountable to the people and representative of the people.