You thought politicians would learn what to say and what not to say, what to do and what not to do, or at least pay someone reliable to consider these things for them. In the wake of recent Tory slip-ups, Online Features Editor Imogen Watson examines the latest round of their problems.
With Boris Johnson speaking out of turn and Exeter alumnus and government minister Andrew Lansley MP being called out for poor expenses claims on dozens of seemingly unnecessary hotel stays, it has arguably been a bad couple of days for the Conservative Party.
To begin, everybody’s favourite London Mayor, Boris Johnson, has been at it again, suggesting last week that we ought not to spend too much time or too many resources on promoting equality within our society. Whilst apparently 16 per cent of “our species” have an IQ of less than 85, approximately two per cent has one over 130, and, during a speech about the benefits of inequality (which fosters “the spirit of envy”), it was the implied message of the Mayor of the Big Smoke that the state ought to use more of our resources for this latter group. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, whilst praising Johnson for being “a funny guy”, Chancellor George Osborne and the Prime Minister alike have distanced themselves from the Conservative Mayor, who is considered to be very high-ranking and a well-known member of their own party. Experts have expressed that correlations between high IQs and educational attainment are existent but slight and probabilistic.
In the meantime, Exeter University’s own Andrew Lansley MP (who recently visited the Streatham Campus and an interview with whom you can read here) has been found to be using the taxpayer’s money to pay for stays in London hotels, despite owning properties both in London itself – a mile from Parliament – and near the village of Royston in his not-too-distant constituency of South Cambridgeshire. MPs are able to claim for a second home where appropriate for working either in London or in their constituency; yet Lansley has racked up a bill of £5950 since April 2012, although his million-pound flat is just in Pimlico. Although a family member is apparently living there (so Lansley can’t).
Granted, one must remember not to act in the moral high ground too much, as the number of employees stealing from their place of work is also on the increase, and at least this time we are not witnessing receipts for duck houses and the cleaning of moats. With Parliament having brought in the apparently Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in the wake of the previous expenses scandal, it is questionable how such claims made it through the scrutiny, but it also does rather beg the question – do politicians ever change?
Politicians’ PR managers must have constant nightmares and demand constant pay rises, but there is a bigger debate at the heart of such comments and such actions. The political world is already a game for the elite, but politicians seem to be going out of their way to make it worse by annoying the public just a little bit more every time they open their mouths.
Image credits: NHS Confederation
After the last expenses scandal, trust in politicians as a whole dipped to an all-time low of 2.3 from its high of 3.5… out of a possible ten. If politicians are so aware of how much the public does not approve of their job performance, their natural reaction ought to be to be on high alert, ready to publicise something positive that they do, ready to avoid such gaffes. Clearly, however, they are not. For the Leader of the House of Commons to set such a poor example, we really should be shocked but instead I found myself sighing disapprovingly and rolling my eyes. What a great state of affairs. Not all politicians are awful, but the ones that are mar the others.
As for the Conservative Party more specifically, its reputation as “the Nasty Party”, rife with scandal and sleaze, is what made it lose the election of 1997 so badly. Boris Johnson may be in contention for the leader of the Party when David Cameron should choose to step down, but his humorous ways and amusing bumbling persona on the international Olympic stage will do him no good if he does not refrain from poor errors of judgement in public affairs that are inherently personal and offensive to large swathes of the population. It is this kind of error that sidelined the Tories for thirteen years, and it will do so again if left unchecked.
Protestors outside the Department of Health Image credits: 38 Degrees
During a recent homecoming, former Health Secretary and Exeter Alumnus Andrew Lansley spoke to James Roberts, Features Editor, about the Guild, government and a picture of his brain
Andrew Lansley is the former Health Secretary, who prescribed harsh treatment for the NHS and was duly struck off. After just over a year shrouded in the relative safety of a minor Cabinet position, Lansley’s name still inspires unrelenting rage in fogeyish surgeons and militant revolutionaries alike. As we sit in the Amory building awaiting his arrival, it’s clear from the hastily printed A4 flyers being thrust under the audience’s noses that many on campus have not forgotten the man that tried to ‘privatise the NHS’.
Despite the obvious pockets of ire, it’s immediately clear that he feels back on home turf at Exeter. “It has changed a lot since the late 1970s,” he observes, “but it’s nice to be back”. Lansley hasn’t visited as much as some of our other prominent alumni, but Exeter remains his political birthplace. “I was elected Guild President and won by 12 votes,” he recalls with a wistful air, “I won mainly because of a lack of appropriate candidates”. Perhaps less has changed than he might imagine. Indeed, in his time at Exeter, he may have had much in common with those currently stuffing Amory with anti-government WordArt. “I remember a sit-in protest that we did at Northcote House – I slept under the Vice-Chancellor’s desk,” Lansley chuckles. It might be only fitting then that the rebellious Guild President turned Conservative Health Secretary is given a taste of his own medicine.
Outside of his political activism, Lansley suggests he didn’t particularly shine as an undergraduate. “I was lucky to get in,” Lansley explains, “I didn’t get the grades but I got in anyway. I got C, D and E at A-Level, but (Professor of Political Theory then and now) Iain Hampshire Monk interviewed me and I got a place”. In spite of this, Lansley can’t help admitting that “political theory wasn’t so important, but my degree did teach me some good stuff about government and politics”. His degree did just that, taking Lansley all the way up the Civil Service food chain before his switch into politics. For many, it is his extensive time working behind the scenes which has given Lansley the eye for detail which has thrust him forward in frontline politics.
As a senior government bureaucrat, he decided to jump ship to work for the Conservative Party. “I was a civil servant,” he recounts, referencing revered political sitcom Yes Minister, “and I had to decide whether I wanted to be Sir Humphrey or Jim Hacker, and I wanted to be on the pitch playing the game rather than watching it from the stands”. Starting his new career playing political football, Lansley emerged from the tunnel to find himself facing the biggest match of his career, in the 1992 General Election. The stunning and undoubtedly unexpected Conservative victory rewarded Lansley with a place on the Tory A-list, a CBE and a minor stroke. “I was given a picture of my brain,” Lansley exclaims with alarming glee, “having pictures of your body parts is one of the weird parts of being a politician”.
While working for the Conservatives, Lansley remembers a young David Cameron working for him in his research department. Is it strange now to think that Cameron has asked Lansley to serve under him? “I can’t have been a bad boss then,” Lansley jests, with an almost uncomfortable chuckle. One cannot help but wonder if this extraordinary role reversal occurred to Lansley when Cameron replaced him with a new Health Secretary in late 2012.
Image credits: NHSE
Lansley’s time as Health Secretary has defined his place British politics. While Labour was in office, he spent six years shadowing the job yet lasted only two contentious years in government. “Politicians should do their jobs for a while and it makes sense for a shadow to do that job before they take it on in government,” he explains, at the same time noting of his own departure that “the ideas that one person could stay on as the Conservative health spokesman for a decade or more is ridiculous”. As the subject of scattered personal attacks, including the ‘Andrew Lansley rap’ and a relentless heckling from an elderly woman outside of Downing Street, hatred for the former Health Secretary has gone viral. Somewhat exasperatedly, he asserts that, “every Health Secretary has wanted to do what the same thing that I did”. His face slowly reddening, voice breaking into frustrated incredulity, he continues, “it is extremely irritating. Other Health Secretaries don’t get the ‘selling the NHS’ nonsense. If I’d done what other Health Secretaries have done, they’d be burning effigies of me!” Though Lansley has considerable knowledge of the symptoms and believes his reforms were exactly what the doctor ordered, the prognosis from the public was not positive.
As the only Permanent Secretary in the Civil Service to become a Cabinet Minister, and with the conscientious approach to match, does he resent his vilification in the media? “You have to be resilient,” he insists, “when you’re sitting round the Cabinet table, everyone has had this kind of attack. It’s not a matter of if, but when”. Unsurprisingly then, Lansley, himself going from Guild to government, is full of discouragement regarding a career in politics, warning simply, “Don’t do it. People go into politics for the celebrity aspect now, but people are used to having a go at celebrities”. While he’s no celebrity, Lansley has become regrettably accustomed to the chores of unending media attention and varying degrees of public venom, despite what we have found to be a decent, considered and mild manner. “Do politics because you believe in it, because you have the political virus,” the former Health Secretary pleads, “politics is not about self-interest, it’s about having inspirational ideas to try and make things better”. Lansley certainly understands those things better than most. For him, his attempted NHS reforms seem to be the culmination of a career founded in radicalism and guided by meticulous public service. Perhaps then, when our next Health Secretary is inevitably accused to trying to ‘sell off the NHS’, spare a thought for the former Health Secretary that was dead on arrival.
Now that Royal Mail has largely been transferred into private hands, Alexander Bonner evaluates the realities of the Great British letter industry.
It is important to refer to Vince Cable’s justification behind the choice to sell the shares at £3.30 each. Cable, who argues that the ‘threat of industrial action by Royal Mail’s staff had influenced the price-setting process’; meaning the decision to sell was perhaps warranted in these troubled conditions. If such a risk of striking was in the equation, the decision to sell at £3.30 per share would not seem as foolish as initially envisaged, as a strike would have had adverse effects on the share prices. However, industry experts, particularly those involved in the investment banking industry, valued the shares of the Royal Mail as 50 per cent higher than at which they were sold, clearly indicating that the timing of the sale could have come as a surprise to some.
Selling 62 per cent of the company’s shares provided a perfect opportunity for investors to take a risk on the company’s share prices. A rise of £1.70 per share suggests that such a risk was warranted, and would have resulted in a tidy return for those willing to take the risk. As a wannabe investor myself, I studied the rising share prices with interest.
The decision to sell such a large proportion of the Royal Mail could have greater symbolism than foreseen, as the sale could represent a much wider decline in the industry. The technological age has been around for a number of years and has subsequently replaced the older forms of communication, mainly the form of letter communication. Sites such as Facebook, Hotmail and Twitter now provide a form of instant communication without the need to take time to gather the required resources to compose a hand – written letter. Using social media is also free, so there are also cost based factors that could explain the decline in letter – writing. I myself have not sent a letter in a considerable period of time, as the likes of Facebook and Twitter are now all too accessible and convenient. I would wager that you are of a similar vein.
The rapid decline in the postal industry means that the government’s decision to sell that 62 per cent share of the Royal Mail should have come to no surprise to industry experts. For example, in 2011, global domestic mail volumes contracted by 3.7 per cent, a 1.2 per cent decrease from 2010. Such a trend is apparent within the British postal industry, providing a justification for the government’s choice of action. It came as no surprise to me, as the letter industry in particular had been facing a sharp decline since the early 2000s. What surprised me in this saga, however, was the timing of the decision, especially as forecasts had predicted shares to rise substantially from the base price of £3.30.
What now lies ahead for the future of the Royal Mail and its customers? Following the sale, the boss of Royal Mail appeared to pave the way for increases to the price of first-class stamps as the newly-privatised company’s soaring shares valued it at nearly £5 billion. Such a decision is a controversial one as consumers, already burdened with rising costs in other industries, will now be even less inclined to purchase stamps. Such a decision is likely to adversely affect the letter industry, as people, when one considers the accessibility of social media, will probably be much less willing to send letters as a result of a price increase.
Image credits: EEPaul
Privatisation is not a new phenomenon and has been subject to substantial debate in recent years. The Royal Mail, now with such a clear majority not owned and controlled by the government, may go down a similar route to previously privatised companies. No one would argue that the privatisation of British Rail in the 1990s was a bad move, as such a decision led to an improvement in railway efficiency and railway standards. It is not yet known whether the government’s decision to sell of a majority of the Royal Mail will lead to such an improvement, although what I can tell you is that efficiency within the Royal Mail needs addressing.
There will always be critics over government policy and decisions, that’s what makes a modern day democracy tick over. Such criticism is no different with this case, despite some criticism being unfounded. It should come as no surprise that the government chose to sell a majority share hold in the company; the industry has been declining for many years and the company needed to improve its efficiency. Critics will tell you that the rise in share prices meant the government sold their shares too early on, and I will have to concur with this assessment. Such a decision means the future of the letter industry remains in the balance. If efficiency is improved, its future could be restored. However, actions to improve the Royal Mail’s efficiency could be seen as counterintuitive. The decision to raise stamp prices illustrates this point, meaning a resurgence in the art of letter writing is unlikely to come about.
Naomi Poltier discusses the state of Britain’s economy, and whether providing foreign aid is a positive move.
Last year I remember busking in the streets of Exeter for one of the university’s campaign groups, when an old man had me pause and asked me why I was raising money for another country, when England was in such a state of need. I politely replied that contrary to what most people believe, the UK only spends about 0.5% of their budget on foreign aid, and the conversation quickly died out.
The exact percentage figure of foreign spending for 2012 is 0.56% (BBC News). It turns out that even with this decimal percentage, the United Kingdom came second to the United States of America in overseas aid spending in 2012, paying out a total of £9 billion. Britain’s overseas aid spending has overtaken Germany’s, despite their GDP being approximately 30% greater than the UK’s.
David Cameron at the G8 Summit. Photo Credits: Matt Cardy/AP
Whilst for some this is bad news, for others it is an accomplishment of pride. George Osborne commented on the United Kingdom’s second place status in overseas aid spending by saying: “We should all take pride, as I do, in this historic achievement.” It is also very gratifying to look at some of the good the UK has been able to do in the world recently. Some most recent accomplishments include the government’s funding of £10 million to back the fight against Polio in Somalia and Kenya with vaccinations, where the first outbreak since 2007 has occurred.
Thanks to the UK, 285,000 civilians a month who are caught up in the Syrian crisis are also getting food. Moreover, during the G8 conference this summer, David Cameron announced that the UK will pledge a further £175 million for the Syrian crisis which is, according to the International Department of Development, the largest single funding commitment ever made by the UK in response to a humanitarian disaster. The department also claims that: “We know that help is getting through, that it is saving lives. The UK, as a G8 member, has one of the world’s largest economies. The government has a responsibility to aid poorer countries, especially during conflict.
Despite the vast benefits of supplying foreign aid, it has many drawbacks. As the Telegraph points out, the UK is facing a triple dip recession. The plans for the end of 2013 are to have increased the percentage of the budget spent on overseas aid to 0.7% from the previous 0.56%, while European countries often reduce money spent on aid during tough economic times. Douglas Carswell points out the negatives in this by stating that: “politicians hand over billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to subsidise governments, but cut back on local services.”
The main issue of poverty in England is child poverty. In June it was reported that “one out of every six children in the UK lives in relative poverty” (BBC News). Relative poverty is a poverty line that is used in comparison to the UK average income, and approximately 300,000 more children fell below this line compared to the year before. With issues like these arising, it is logical for Carswell to point out that people living in the UK are unfairly paying taxes which are being partially poured to other countries’ governments.
Personally, I am a great supporter of foreign aid. I have travelled to several under-developed countries, and seen countless slums which we could never count as acceptable conditions of living. No matter how cliché it sounds, we are immensely privileged. I think that an extra 0.5% or 0.7% of a budget spent will make less difference to us than it will to the lives it improves and saves around the world.
Living among the world’s richest, it is our responsibility to give people access to basic human needs: food, health, and if possible, access to stimulating aspects of life like education. However, it is not right for people in the UK to suffer in relative poverty, especially as this number is growing and those people cannot be forgotten due to comparison with extreme poverty.
The solution is not to be found in spending money, but in managing society and how money is spent. The little extra percentage of money the UK would get by eliminating foreign aid will not make much of a difference, and especially not as much as re-thinking social strategies.
Jeffrey Sachs mentioned in his book How to End Poverty that much of feeling ‘poor’ also lies in a man or woman’s dignity. This is why people who are relatively poor in the UK would feel ‘rich’ if they moved to a slum in Lima, Peru. But, this aspect of dignity is one of the rare parts of eradicating poverty which can come free of charge. Jeffrey Sachs argues that this is a crucial part of taking communities out of poverty: to dignify and power the human mind.
I agree, to a certain extent, and do not think that the UK needs to reduce the amount of money spent on foreign aid. Like Osborne, I believe it should be a point of pride. The Coalition has a similar point of view regarding the need for money in helping the UK, as they report they aim to end child poverty in the UK by 2020 by finding the source of the problem with further research rather than by primarily giving aid money.
While the UK has its own poverty problems to fix, it is far ahead of many of the developing countries of the world. When the old man in the street interrupted my street singing I quickly labelled him as narrow-minded. We have much to learn in terms of open-mindedness from providing aid to the rest of the world, as well as in learning to fix problems of poverty within the UK with other means than money. As is widely claimed today, fixing poverty is not a single follow-through recipe, there is rather a different one for every single community that must be investigated. Money can only go so far.
Better off in, better off out… the debate is endless, but public knowledge about this international organisation is not. Just what is the European Union?
the European Union Flag Image credits: R/DV/RS
What we call today the European Union has existed in various forms since its creation. Currently, this political and economic partnership exists between twenty-eight countries which are, unsurprisingly, situated in Europe.
History
It all began after the Second World War, the idea being that countries which trade would be less likely to go to war with each other. By 1958, the European Economic Community (EEC) was established out of the 1951 European Coal and Steel Community between six initial countries – Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, France, Italy and the Netherlands –freeing up the borders between them to allow better trade links.
We, the United Kingdom (in case you were not so sure), have always been a bunch of sceptics, refusing to make the “Inner Six” a “Seven” in the beginning, and then later joining in 1973 (with a bit of persuasion from the USA and the Suez Crisis). Shockingly, or perhaps not at all, our [poor] relationship with the French meant it would take three attempts at membership and Charles de Gaulle’s departure from the French presidency for them, fearing too much US involvement, to finally stop saying non and ruining our chances.
Now
The EEC became the European Union (EU) in November 1993 under the Maastricht Treaty, establishing what are known as its “Three Pillars”: the European Community – removing the word “Economic” to show the wider policy range it now covers; Common Foreign and Security Policy; and Police and Judicial Co-Operation in Criminal Matters. Although the latter two Pillars are largely based on international co-operation between member states with representatives working together on relevant issues, the first Pillar contains the supra-national institutions – those who have authority over individual national governments – and all of their work.
To begin, the European Commission is responsible for proposing legislation, upholding the Treaties they establish and running the EU from day to day. Each member state sends a single representative, making a total of twenty-eight members. The President of the European Commission is elected from these twenty-eight by the European Parliament. Don’t confuse this with the President of the European Union (who is actually the head of the European Council), currently President van Rompuy of Belgium!
The European Council has no strict power to make laws, but it is a body of the heads of government of each member state and is responsible for “the general political directions and priorities” of the EU according to the Lisbon Treaty. It acts as a body to be the presidency of the Union, and the head of the Council is its representative.
European Parliament, Strasbourg Image credits: Salim Shadid
The next institution is the European Parliament. If you have ever voted for a Member of the European Parliament as we are charged to do every five years (the next time being in 2014), this is where the 766 of them elected across the Union work. Depending on their political opinions, they join forces with politicians of similar views to create larger voting blocs such as the Greens or the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats. Its job is to debate and vote on legislation, although it can’t actually use its initiative to create it itself. It does, however, have the second largest electorate (or voting population) in the world after India, and the largest trans-national democratic electorate, with 376 million eligible voters at the last elections.
Despite its lack of initiative, it does share power over the budget with the Council, and has to hold the European Commission shares equal legislative and budgetary powers with the Council and, just to confuse you, has its own President – currently Martin Schulz.
Finally, there is the European High Court of Justice which is the highest court of the EU and based in Luxembourg. It is mainly responsible for making sure all EU law is applied fairly across the Union. Again, each member state sends one judge and so there are twenty-eight of them, although it’s uncommon for all of them to hear every single case.
The Euro
Coming fully into force in 2002, the euro is the currency of seventeen of the twenty-eight member states, also known as the eurozone. A better currency for trading purposes, as well as a sense of unity, the eurozone is estimated by the International Monetary Fund as the second largest economy in the world, and the euro is the most-traded currency after, of course, the US dollar. If you’re as strange as I am (and commiserations if you are), you may have noticed from your travels to the eurozone – perhaps Spain, France, Finland or Ireland – that each country has a different design on the back of coins initially introduced into that country. “RF” for “République Francaise” or the French Republic is stamped across the French euro coins, for example.
The euro has been the cause of much debate and controversy in the UK. You won’t need me to point out to you that we are still in possession of the Great British Pound Sterling for currency, but there has been past discussion amongst British politicians about abandoning it for the euro. Whilst the Maastricht Treaty establishing the EU compelled most member states to swap their pesetas, francs and deutschmarks (among many others) for the euro, Denmark and Britain both notably negotiated exceptions.
New Labour, elected to power in 1997, was cautiously optimistic about joining, dependent upon our passing five particular economic tests first although it was a relatively minor issue in the end, despite William Hague’s decision to run his 2001 election campaign based, bizarrely, almost entirely on keeping the pound. Of course, since the economic crisis and the euro descending into madness, any British subscription to the euro now seems unlikely.
So where should you stand on the EU?
Paying any significant attention to the news and current affairs will make you very much aware of strongly-held and strongly-fought opinions about the Union. Indeed, we have a whole political party dedicated to the cause: the United Kingdom Independence Party, or UKIP.
If you have made it this far through the article, you will perhaps have noted one of the major, particularly British, complaints about the European Union: the bureaucracy is an apparent nightmare. The idea of creating institutions each with their own responsibilities might have seemed wondrous, but instead there are a thousand and one different jobs to do by different people and a fair few “Presidents” and “High Commissioners” to go with it.
Many of said leaders are unelected which is cause for concern for those who are worried that the EU is too close turning into a supra-nation, and generally speaking, election turnout is close to pathetic – so those who debate our laws are not really accountable at all; in the last election, 43 per cent of all European voters cast their ballot.
The one nation problem is another worry in itself. People are not keen to lose their national identities which have been so well forged across the centuries, and many have nothing like a “European” identity. Particularly in Britain, our island mentality restricts us from being too keen to get too involved, and makes us angry when statistics are thrown around about how many of our laws are passed down from the European Parliament.
Eurosceptic politicians shout very loudly however, and those who are pro-EU keep their mouths closed far too much in comparison.
In an increasingly globalised world, it is silly to isolate ourselves from co-operation and partnership. Granted, prosecuting shopkeepers who price goods in pounds and ounces and not grams and kilograms is rather a ridiculous preoccupation for the European Union and anger over it is understandable, as is trying to tell us that Cadbury’s is not real chocolate (come on!!). But without the EU, travelling between mainland European countries would not be as easy as it is – the Schengen Agreement stops you from having to pull out your passport and go through customs and immigration checks every time you cross a border; trade would be restricted; police investigations would be more difficult across borders.
Image credits: Francisco Antunes
Nor could you just go and get a job in an EU country like you can now (provided there are any). Having spent a year living and working in France, without the EU I would have had a much more difficult time trying to set up my residency status and getting healthcare coverage than I did, and would have wasted my time on that rather than learning a new culture and language (and eating cheese – to perpetuate a stereotype).
All in all, the European Union is not about infringing national sovereignty and imposing petty laws on people. Or it ought not to be. It ought to be about co-operation and achieving bigger goals. Politicians argue that we have too many immigrants now – conveniently forgetting or simply not mentioning our chances to go and experience these other countries – and that the EU it costs too much and we aren’t getting the benefit from it back in the UK and if that is true then it is because we are not making the most of our involvement and reaping the benefit we could have whilst we dither on the edge.
Closing borders simply turns us into bigger xenophobes than we already are.
And if none of this convinces you, well then I suppose it has allowed us to hear a fair few stupid quotes…
Top Eight Quotes from European Politicians
“Sod off, you prick.” – Nicolas Sarkozy to journalist
“[Mr Obama is] young, handsome and suntanned.” – Silvio Berlusconi
Bonus: “Ah, Barack Obama. You won’t believe it, but the two of them sunbathe together, because the wife is also tanned.”) – Silvio Berlusconi
“You have all the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk and the question that I want to ask, that we all want to ask, is ‘Who are you?’” – UKIP’s Nigel Farage to the President of the European Council
“You have lost a good opportunity to shut up.” – Nicolas Sarkozy to David Cameron
“She says she’s on a diet and then helps herself to a second helping of cheese.” – Nicolas Sarkozy about Angela Merkel
“China is a big country, inhabited by many Chinese.” – Charles de Gaulle
“In Italy, I am almost seen as German for my workaholism. Also I am from Milan, the city where people work the hardest. Work, work, work – I am almost German.” – Silvio Berlusconi (perhaps I ought not have spoken about stereotypes)
The government despatch box. Image credits: Harry Lawford
Parliament is back in session, and David Cameron and Ed Miliband are shouting from despatch box to despatch box once again. Online Features Editor Imogen Watson debates whether this tradition is really helping anybody.
Questions to the Prime Minister is a prime example of why the country is so frustrated with the political world. The shouting, the arguments and the incessant sound of jeering is highly reprehensible from the so-called “mother of democracy”, and it represents just what is wrong with our Parliament.
Prime Ministers have answered questions from the Commons for centuries, but its previous fixed format was only established under Winston Churchill. Theoretically, Members of the House of Commons can put questions to the Prime Minister in the hope of an explanatory and helpful answer, as part of a sure-fire way of keeping the transparency of politics alive.
For those unsure of the process of Prime Minister’s Questions, it works as follows. Backbench Members of Parliament submit their names to the Order Paper and allocations for question slots are distributed by ballot. The first question is almost always a request for the Prime Minister to list his engagements for the day, followed by a supplementary question from the same MP. The Leader of the Opposition can ask a maximum of six questions. All that bizarre standing up and sitting down is the way in which MPs who were not selected on the ballot attempt to “catch the eye” of the Speaker should they wish to speak. Tradition is an odd thing.
It used to be that Prime Ministers were forced for face the wrath of the Commons twice a week, on a Tuesday and a Thursday to be precise, for fifteen minutes at a time. Arguably this allowed for a wider scope of questions, especially seeing as certain Prime Ministers were far more commanding of attention, or perhaps, so as not to deride our current and recent esteemed leaders, at least the Commons was better behaved. In Thatcher’s time, there were an approximate 0.6 interruptions per session, as opposed to over six in Cameron’s.
Tony Blair changed PMQs significantly. Image credits: Chatham House
Nowadays, thanks to Tony Blair, Prime Ministers defend themselves at the despatch box for a thirty minute session every Wednesday at noon. Except if they were really answering questions for half an hour it would be a miracle; as per the aforementioned fact about interruptions, Prime Ministers and their questioners rarely speak for that long at all due to the volume of noise stopping anything productive from happening. Blair himself refers to PMQs as “the most nerve-racking, discombobulating, nail-biting, bowel-moving, terror-inspiring, courage-draining experience in [his] prime ministerial life, without question,” which explains the desire to not go through it twice a week.
Indeed, the whole spectacle is a debacle. Can you remember the last time you watched the event televised, or a clip of it? I would wager possibly not, but if you can, can you remember the last time you were satisfied with an answer? Sometimes, the Prime Minister will satisfy a questioner, and sometimes he will go away and find more information, which is great. Unfortunately, most of the time when the Prime Minister is allowed to speak through the shouting of his own backbenches at the questioner, or the shouting of the Opposition at the ongoing sight of the Prime Minister, answers are sufficiently unhelpful. If this description sounds like a playground, that is because it looks like one too.
The times either Prime Minister or questioner have been sufficiently humiliated are the videos so delightfully uploaded to YouTube. The greatness of someone’s question or response? Not so common. Now there is a standard for which to aim.
Exeter’s MP Ben Bradshaw said in June that “PMQs has become so awful I would rather be doing something more useful with my time like responding to constituents’ letters… The noise and rowdiness in the Commons’ chamber is much worse than the public realise, because they only hear what is broadcast by the single microphone activated above the head of the person speaking.”
Misbehaviour and volume of voice are not the only problems. Male MPs have been known to make gestures juggling imaginary breasts at female MPs and Ministers, and rather eloquently shout comments such as “Melons!” David Cameron got into hot water by telling Angela Eagle, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the time to “calm down, dear”. Encouraging, perhaps, for more women to get into politics.
Lucky enough as I was this summer, I was able to view the final PMQs before the summer recess live and in front of the security glass (installed post Blair’s experience with condoms filled with purple flour – no doubt on YouTube if you have no idea what this means). I am one of those people who has regularly watched, or has seen parts of the noon session on television or online. I had once found it interesting.
It is entertaining to watch it in such a manner – or arguably in any manner at all – for maybe ten or fifteen minutes. Afterwards, sadly, it just turns into a head-in-hands event. When you can hear through the wall of noise (if only this were an exaggeration), it is, granted, slightly amusing when somebody slips up, or when somebody has a great line. But otherwise in its current form it is a shambles of an element of democracy. There is no way it is a good way of holding government and the Prime Minister to account: questions are not consistently asked for a real answer, they are asked to embarrass, and answers are not desired to be heard. If MPs could jeer any more loudly, certainly they would.
Whilst there are good intentions in its existence, Prime Minister’s Questions is simply a show and – I am even saying this as a political bean – an embarrassment of one.
Head, as ever, up in the political clouds, Online Features Editor Imogen Watson anticipates the General Election 2015.
It has been a funny old these last three-and-a-bit years since the current coalition government was elected to power back in May 2010.
We have seen the rapid decrease in the Liberal Democrats already-muted popularity, a sad surge in support for the United Kingdom Independence Party, ministers hurried in to and shepherded out from the Cabinet and more politicians making stupid comments, and some of them intentionally. Sadly the latter is not something that can only be attributed to Britain, but neither are our elected representatives succeeding in blazoning a path towards common sense.
The Conservative-led government has become quite the talented driver, performing incredible numbers of U-turns at rapid speeds. It has become quite the disappointment, too, that is if anyone was expecting anything impressive from them by now.
Granted, regardless of political affiliation, the situation
the government inherited was not far short of terrible; economies beginning to collapse worldwide and ordinary people worrying about what future was to come, at a loss to explain quite how this had happened. Since hitting recession under the last Labour government in 2008, only a few will have been lucky to have avoided the effects. I, for one, have only really had any money of my own since the recession began, and so having got used to the current situation hope that there will be a day in the future where my money stretches a lot further than it does now. One can dream.
Image credits: The Prime Minister’s Office
But there is a window for improvement, and the government has missed it. The UK, not having been as badly affected as certain other European economies, is one of the last to pull itself towards the vague light of recovery, after more than three years of a new government. “Pull” is, perhaps, the wrong verb here. Let us go instead for “drag”. The latest news of hope that the economy is heading in the right direction is pretty pathetic. We ought to have been receiving this news along with the United States, instead of watching our credit rating being downgraded and hearing warnings of a triple-dip recession. How embarrassing, somebody get a grip.
As I pointed out, however, life should be looking up, after all four thousand fewer people were unemployed last month than in June, and David Cameron says that this is “encouraging”.
What he neglected to comment on is that actually youth unemployment is up, again, and the number of people undergoing long-term unemployment is up too – again. Unemployment in the West Midlands? That’s up too, to just a smidgen under one in ten people, a region which once employed so many in manufacturing and industry and is now in danger of serious neglect. I wish one could even say this particular region’s figures were the worst of the bunch, but one cannot. Encouraging? David Cameron, I am afraid, is simply out of touch.
The Coalition has been prone, as most governments are, to hurl the blame backwards in time to the Labour Party – in politics, where the diciest of relationships occur, it most certainly is always a case of “it’s not me, it’s you”. This attitude sticks for a while, but nearly three and a half years down the line, is it not time a government started taking responsibility for its actions, when numerous experts have openly criticised spending plans because they do not look to have the right, or indeed any, effect?
The problems are not only economic. Recently certain boroughs of London were treated to the sight of vans scaremongering both legal British citizens and illegal immigrants alike: go home or face arrest. It was Vince Cable – a Liberal Democrat partner in the Coalition – to stand out from the government and point out that actually, “We have a problem but it’s not a vast one. It’s got to be dealt with in a measured way dealing with the underlying causes.” According to the New Statesman, David Cameron may not have even been aware of the campaign before it happened.
Numerous issues are damaging this government – I could continue for hours. Not through misfortune, but through poor decisions, and a great (meaning large, not fantastic) game of blame and pass-the-buck. The problem is that viable alternatives are not currently waiting in the wings.
We need a good, honest (I cannot stress that enough), thorough debate on the issues. We do not need more coalitions, failed promises and people wondering what they are paying politicians for. It is fair to say that the Liberal Democrats, like beforehand, are in no likely position to be forming a stable government any time soon, nor even the largest party. The UKIP fun and laughter is dying down or at least beginning to flatline, and heaven forbid it should increase again as more and more of their candidates out themselves as bigoted and xenophobic ignoramuses. Even if they were to surprise me in 2015, their support will be the Lib Dems’ old problem – spread too thinly across the nation to gain any great number of seats.
Labour really needs to pull its act together. Although lots of people continue to struggle through benefit changes,
“Fresh ideas”? Where are they? Image credits: EdMiliband
lack of jobs to go around, increased student fees, rising debt, payday loans and more, there is an indication that life is looking up and it is an indication to which public feeling has latched on at least a little. Labour policies are lacking in response, and even my mother is considering not voting in 2015 (trust me, that means something). The Party shed its bigwigs and party elders – perhaps they should bring them back again. There is a mini squabble going on at the top of the Labour Party which is helping nobody’s public image, and instead of coming out fighting, united, there is a whole lot of nothing coupled with one or two mishaps to fill the gap and get everybody talking – about the wrong thing.
Something tells me that since Andy Burnham (Shadow Secretary of State for Health) piped up in the not too distant past, Labour policy may be just around the corner. I hope so, and I hope the wait has made it good, or it might be too little, too late.
Following the recent Council Elections, online comment editor Dave Reynolds assesses the position of the key political parties, and their standing for the General Election in 2015.
With more than 2300 county seats up for grabs across England, recent Council Election results leave the main political parties with much to ponder, with the General Election in 2015 fast approaching. The Conservatives lost well over 300 seats across England and see their nationwide support down at about 32% in Yougov polls. This is largely down to some typical Conservative voters turning to the Nigel Farage party (aka UKIP).
Many say that the Conservatives should take UKIP seriously, but I believe that Tories currently voting for UKIP out of protest will come home to the party in time for the general election in 2015 and support for UKIP will dwindle. Farage will still be happier than he was at the 2010 Election; he will have a higher vote share and possibly a seat in parliament, as long as he doesn’t crash his plane again! Despite making small gains across England in the county council elections, Labour need to do far more to appeal to the ‘working man’ if they have any plans of governing in 2015.
Image Credits- BBC
The Conservatives are faced with a very difficult dilemma. Should Cameron seek a more right wing agenda and take a tougher stance on immigration, EU and law an order in an attempt to lure dissatisfied voters back from UKIP? That is what he is doing. But I believe it is the wrong way to go.
We shouldn’t be listening to UKIP. These angry Tories seeking to protest in a mid-term election will come back to the Conservatives at the general election as they will come to their senses and see that a split right will pave the way for Ed Miliband and the Labour Party to walk back into power. David Cameron needs to stick to the ‘modernising’ plan he had when first elected leader of the Conservatives in 2005. In order to win the 2015 election he needs to be wooing voters on the centre ground, not concentrating on the far right. They will come back to you, Dave!
Looking at the Labour Party, all economic indicators suggest they should be way ahead in the polls. With growth flat-lining, living standards falling and inequality in the UK at an all-time high, Ed Miliband should be preparing his victory speech for 2015. But unfortunately, he has not been brave enough to really say anything. Nobody knows what his economic plan is. While a fiscal stimulus (for example a VAT cut or an increase in government spending on infrastructure) is a credible option, he is too afraid to say it as he fears admitting to more borrowing would be political suicide. It wouldn’t even necessarily increase the budget deficit.
We’re spending so much money on welfare because unemployment is still stubbornly high, a fiscal stimulus that gets more people into work would obviously cut welfare payments as unemployment will fall and tax receipts would rise. But he’s too afraid to admit the deficit would rise in the short run. I can’t imagine that global markets really care if our debt is 1.3 trillion or 1.4 trillion. The numbers are beyond belief anyway! It’s growth that we need and in the short run, we just have to take that risk on the deficit. A fresh economic approach is needed for the Labour Party and this could be made by removing Ed Balls as Shadow Chancellor and bringing in the former Chancellor Alistair Darling – the man who arguably saved us from a depression.
With the two main parties both failing to take the initiative, another hung parliament looks the most likely outcome of the 2015 General Election. Therefore, the party who can be most confident of being in the next government is the Liberal Democrats, despite a massive drop in popularity due to the broken promise on abolishing tuition fees and no longer being a protest vote. All in all, these council election results are going to be depressing for all three of the main parties. It’s time for all of them to up their game.
At the recent UKIP spring conference, Exeposé interviewed party member Winston McKenzie, who shared his views on racism, David Cameron and the Conservative government, and young people helping UKIP on their journey to power.
Winston McKenzie, UKIP member and ex-boxer, is probably most well known in politics for two things.
Firstly, he came third in the North Croydon by-election, beating the Liberal Democrat candidate Marisha Ray. Overall, UKIP’s votes rose by 4% to 5.7% in the election. This, McKenzie told Exeposé, ‘was brilliant’, and clearly a boost to the party’s ego. Secondly, you may remember the public backlash that ensued after he claimed adoption by gay couples constituted ‘child abuse.’ But McKenzie is not fazed by the criticism.
The 59-year-old politician, who has been a member of every major political party at some point in the last thirty years, still believes UKIP will go far. He told Exeposé: ‘I really sincerely hope that we sink the Tories in the forthcoming local elections, I hope that we sink them in the general election and I hope that we sink them in the European election so that they’re wiped off the face of the earth.’
It seems apparent that his dislike of the Conservatives is rooted in his evolving conflict with Prime Minister David Cameron. McKenzie explained: ‘He (Cameron) tries to be tough but he’s soft so I couldn’t aspire to him.’ McKenzie divulged that he has taken offence from ‘the quips that he (Cameron) has made about UKIP being fruitcakes and closet racists,’ which were ‘very disrespectful.’ He added: ‘I think it’s a personal jibe at me.’
But McKenzie praises UKIP’s leader Nigel Farage, saying that he is ‘greatly inspired’ by him. McKenzie also feels that UKIP are inspirational to young people and are the party of the future. ‘Many young people are looking at UKIP as the party that is listening to people, and as the party that will carry their voice,’ he told Exeposé.
‘We are turning over a new leaf now where we are getting a lot of young people showing interest in the party and that is great.’ He added: ‘I’m so amazed to hear the young people in UKIP holding seminars and talking about the future and putting ideas to the party, it’s absolutely amazing.
‘These young men and women are going to make great leaders one day.’
On the question of racism, of which UKIP are so often accused, McKenzie does not seem too fazed. ‘As far as UKIP is concerned I don’t notice racism on the level that some people do.’ But he does recognise the issue of racism. ‘Racism is everywhere. It’s everywhere in all walks of society. Racism is blatant, it’s abundant and it’s alive and kicking.’
Contrary to popular belief, McKenzie also believes that UKIP is becoming more attractive to ‘black and ethnic people’ who are ‘showing far greater interest in the party.’ Of this McKenzie noted: ‘I’m glad to say I’ve contributed to that.’
Where many may see racism as UKIP’s weak point, its relationship with other countries is certainly its strength for Eurocsceptics. There is no doubt that voters are drawn to UKIP for its unwavering stance on Europe and immigration.
McKenzie recognises this and believes the current system of electing MEPs is ‘a travesty of justice.’ He added: ‘They are unelected bureaucrats which we are throwing our money to and asking them to rule us, asking them to make policies on our behalf.’ McKenzie sees the European Union as a ‘big boy’s club’ and blames David Cameron for seeing fit to ‘brush this terrible injustice under the carpet.’
It must be quite crowded under that carpet, as McKenzie also feels that Cameron has failed to act upon the role of the bankers in the downturn of the economy. He told Exeposé: ‘They’ve taken our money; they’ve taken our souls and everything we own.’
With David Cameron currently chasing trade and profit in India, Rory Morgan asks if it would be easy to forget that the country was not too long ago a British Colony vying for Britain’s attention and generosity.
A pleasing irony seems to come from a European leader wearing a Turban and shamelessly using the tactic of flattery to a rising power their country previously oppressed. Cameron has been in fierce competition with Francis Hollande to open up trade with India and recently lost out to the French in his bid for a fighter jet contract with New Delhi. In the last decade India has developed into one of the world’s largest economies and this seems to beg the question could this have happened earlier without British colonisation?
The sad truth is no. India might be an economic powerhouse but it is also one of the most impoverished countries in the world and this imbalance of wealth is something the British helped to implement. India is 129th in the world for its per capita of wealth. This shocking discrepancy indicates the country’s economic structure. Capitalism was an ideology brought by the west and is one of the key reasons India has become so rich. They are able to use their natural resources to trade and accumulate wealth and then hold onto and control this wealth by not distributing it. Who was this economic structure learned from? The British, of course.
This is certainly not something to take pride in and Cameron’s trip seems to almost condone this out-dated behaviour. But Britain cannot be too critical of India’s extreme class division as it helped to shape and define it, and poking at this structure would create some obvious double standards. But should we really be seeking trade from a country so socially backward?
The answer to this is not clear. On the one hand Britain is economically weak and needs to be forming bonds with countries that have larger and more lucrative economies and the state of India’s social system is not something we seem to have a massive effect on. But then there is still that nagging matter of principle. We are a country with a brilliant welfare system to cater for the less fortunate, but a century ago our social structure was not so different to India’s. Maybe with the right amount of international pressure and scrutiny Pranab Mukherjee, his ruling party and the more privileged would feel compelled to actively try to lessen the wealth gap. Or maybe this notion is just futile idealism.
Regardless of the outcome it still does seem important as a democratic and comparatively fair socially structured country to uphold certain principles. Going and seeking trade with a country that does not seem to have these principles and shows little interest in developing even the most basic of them feels wrong. It almost feels like the same questions are popping up as when Prime Minister Cameron visited China two years ago. The motivations can be understood, as many have already stated it is likely that the economies of China and India will soon take the reigns from America. But it is still right to butter up a country that still accepts poverty aid in the millions from us despite having the means to begin improving conditions themselves? This will come to an end in 2015, but it is impossible that India’s poverty will even slightly deplete by then.
With quite a conundrum of guilt mixed with financial reliance it seems that Britain ultimately has little power over the social mess it has created and if things don’t change will continue to ignore and profit from it.
exeposedev 