Hypocrisy can't stop condemnation of Israeli offensive

Israeli supporters and officials have condemned numerous statements against the slaughter in Gaza as hypocrisy on the part of British politicians.

Drawing comparisons to Britain and America's invasion of Iraq in 2003 several senior Israeli politicians have called on current and former MP's to retract their comments opposing the blood shed.

Earlier this week former deputy Prime Minister John Prescott brought Israeli anger after accusing the country of war crimes in its ongoing bombardment of the beleaguered region.

Writing in the Mirror Mr Prescott said: "Imagine a country claiming the lives of nearly three times as many as were lost in the MH17 plane tragedy in less than three weeks.

A nation which blasted a hospital, shelled and killed children from a gunboat as they played football on the beach and was responsible for 1,000 deaths, at least 165 of them children, in just two weeks.

Surely it would be branded a pariah state, condemned by the United Nations, the US and the UK. The calls for regime change would be deafening."

Mr Prescott continues by acknowledging the part which the Palestinian authority Hamas has played in the conflict with its rocket attacks on Israeli territory before saying: 

"But who is to say some of the other 20 per cent weren’t innocent too? Israel brands them terrorists but it is acting as judge, jury and executioner in the concentration camp that is Gaza."

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has been among those to call on Israel to stop its attacks, which have hit UN buildings where people were sheltering, amid a growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

 "It is amounting now to a disproportionate form of collective punishment. It is leading to a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, which is just unacceptable," he said.

"I really would now call on the Israeli government to stop. They have proved their point. Israel of course retains the right to react. But you cannot see the humanitarian suffering in Gaza now and the very great number of deaths in Gaza without concluding that there is not much more going to be served in Israel's own interests … to see this festering humanitarian crisis get worse. It incubates the next generation of violent extremists who want to do harm to Israel."

Despite the majority of casualties in the conflict being innocent civilians the Israeli government has refused to back down, claiming that Operation Protective Edge is a responsible and proportionate defence of is people, going as far as to say that they "have a policy - we don't target civilians".

The figures tell a different story though. More than 1360 Palestinians, mostly civilian, have been killed since the attacks started on the 8th of July compared to 58 Israeli's, two of whom were civilian. Earlier this week Israeli fire hit a United Nations school, not the first UN building to be attacked, something which Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said they would investigate and possibly "apologise" if they felt it was needed.

On Wednesday the IDF also breached a further ceasefire, claiming that truces only were in place where Israeli forces were not operating, by targeting a market where women and children were trying to gather supplies while they believed they may be safe.

Israel's argument that Britain is being hypocritical in its coverage of the abuse seems to warrant further attention, however. For the claim to be proven then it must by rights acknowledge that it has no legal justification for the level of armed intervention which it is currently engaged in, as many experts have stated was the case with former Prime Minister Tony Blair's engagement in Iraq. Even if this were the case though hypocrisy is no reason not to condemn an act of slaughter. In 1290 the English King Edward I instigated the expulsion of all Jews, leading to the "great Jewish expulsions" of the Middle Ages. Hypocrisy would not allow us, or many other countries, to have done all they could to intervene in a holocaust happening again. Hypocrisy cannot stop us from taking the right action now and calling for the senseless killings of innocent Palestinians to end and end now. 

Blair fiddles as Gaza burns

UNITED Nations Peace Envoy Tony Blair has come under fire for hosting a lavish birthday party for his wife while Israeli forces continue their offensive in Gaza.

At the time that Mr Blair was partying with 150 guests ceasefire agreements were stalling in Gaza and the death toll continuing to rise. Already more than 1000 Palestinians have died in the fighting, the majority of whom are civilians. Two Israeli civilians and more than 40 soldiers have also died as the embattled region burns.

A spokesman for Mr Blair said: “Tony has been in touch on the crisis and will return to the region this week.

"He cares passionately about what is happening and will do anything he can to help.”

For all his concerns, however, the former Prime Minister was snapped partying with celebs and politicians, including current Labour Leader Ed Milliband, while UN officials struggled to hammer out a solution to the conflict.

In a statement UN leaders called for a ceasefire to be held during the Islamic festival of Eid and condemned the loss of civilian life.

 “The Security Council expresses grave concern regarding the deterioration in the situation as a result of the crisis related to Gaza and the loss of civilian lives and casualties.

“The Security Council calls for full respect of international humanitarian law, including the protection of civilian population, and reiterates the need to take appropriate steps to ensure the safety and well-being of civilians and their protection.

“The Security Council expresses strong support for the call by international partners and the Secretary-General of the United Nations for an immediate and unconditional humanitarian ceasefire, allowing for the delivery of urgently needed assistance, and they urged all parties to accept and fully implement the humanitarian ceasefire into the Eid period and beyond."

As a peace envoy Mr Blair is not required in Security Council meetings, however his absence from the region is likely to be seen by some observers as a sign that the UN is not taking the situation as seriously as many would like.

"Israel’s continuing bombardment of civilian homes in several areas of the Gaza Strip, as well as the shelling of a hospital, add to the list of possible war crimes that demand an urgent independent international investigation, said Amnesty International spokesman said last week.

In his role in the region Mr Blair would have seemed a likely candidate to take part in such an investigation.

Mr Blair's position as Peace Envoy has been a contentious issue since his appointment. Several observers in the region have expressed views that following his actions in Iraq he is the wrong person to promote stability on the region. This was further exasperated earlier this month after he called for more intervention in Syria, and for potential action against ISIS forces in Iraq.

For now, however, Mr Blair seems more interested in celebrating his wife's 60th birthday, which is actually in September, than fulfilling such an important role at this critical time. 

Social media proves dangerous place for MP's

SOCIAL media has once again proved to be a risky medium for politicians as they fail to grasp the need to watch what they say.

The latest member of parliament to fall foul of the networks has been Liberal Democrat MP for Bradford West David Ward who demonstrated his poor judgement with tweets relating to the Israeli offensive in Gaza.

Mr Ward has garnered condemnation for tweeting: ""The big question is - if I lived in #Gaza would I fire a rocket? - probably yes," and, "Ich bin ein #palestinian - the West must make up its mind - which side is it on?"

A spokesman for the Labour Party said: "At a time when all sides should be working for a ceasefire and a peaceful settlement, it defies belief that a Liberal Democrat MP should tweet something so vile and irresponsible."

Meanwhile in a carefully worded statement a Liberal Democrat spokesman distanced the party from Mr Ward's statement. 

"David has previously overstepped the mark with repugnant language.

"We fully support his right to campaign on behalf of the Palestinian people, but these views are clearly vile, crass and offensive."

Israel's actions in Gaza has drawn international attention as the civilian death toll mounts from air strikes and the ground offensive. More than 630, mostly civilian, Palestinians have died in the fighting as Isarel's attacks become ever more disproportionate and bloody, compared to approximately 20 Israeli soldiers and two civilian casualties.

Mr Ward is not the first MP to come under fire for expressing ill thought through views on social media networks. Last month Lichfield MP Michael Fabricant found himself at the centre of a twitter storm after posting that if he had been debating female journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown he might end up "punching her in the throat".

In both cases Tory Chairman Grant Shapps has been quick to ensure that the Conservative party is not implicated in the personal views expressed. Speaking after Mr Ward's tweet Mr Shapps was reported as saying: "No MP should tweet what's essentially incitement to violence. Completely irresponsible."

In response to Mr Fabricant's comment he said: "I don’t think it was appropriate. I think it is absolutely right that he apologised. Sometimes on Twitter people shoot from the hip and then repent as appropriate. I don’t think what he said was appropriate and it is not the first time I have thought that.

“That is why I let him go earlier in the year from the post of vice-chancellor.”

For officials of all parties social media is providing a headache which they had never planned for. Whereas once statements could be carefully crafted and thought through the immediate access to thousands of people proves just too much of a draw for some politicians. While it may provide the electorate with a better idea of who they are voting for it has a tendency to cloud issues and divert attention from the official line. For many MP's social media is a strange and unforgiving place, if they are to survive they need to fall back on their old standards and treat every post as an on the record sound bite, otherwise their careers make become little more than a hashtag of history.

Lib Dems risk being party of obscurity

THE Liberal Democrat party is sliding ever closer to political obscurity as former allies accuse them of cynical hypocrisy in attempts to claw back support.

In a week which has seen more Liberal Democrat supporters say that David Cameron would make a better Prime Minister than their own party leader, Nick Clegg is under pressure to prove that his party has what it takes to lead.

Having already turned its back on the bedroom tax, calling for the policy which they voted in to be reassessed amid controversy the Lib Dems are now being accused of hypocrisy and electioneering by many in parliament.

Labour MP Rachel Reeves, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said: "This is unbelievable hypocrisy from Nick Clegg. The Lib Dems voted for the bedroom tax. There wouldn't be a bedroom tax if it wasn't for the Lib Dems. And in February when Labour tabled a bill to scrap the bedroom tax, the Lib Dems were nowhere to be seen. This just goes to show why you can't trust a word the Lib Dems say - it is clear the only way to cancel the bedroom tax is to elect a Labour government next year."

This does not bode well for rumoured plans of a potential Liberal/Labour coalition following the general election, something which Liberal Democrat Climate and Energy Minister Ed Davey has recently announced could be a genuine possibility.

Speaking to reporters Mr Davey said:

"If we were negotiating again – and I hope we will be, but probably with the Labour party this time; that would be my prediction – I think because we are used to coalition politics we would negotiate even better."

Earlier this year Mr Clegg was also quoted as considering such a pact while speaking on a BBC Radio 4 documentary.

"I think there's nothing like the prospect of reality in an election to get politicians to think again, and the Labour party, which is a party unused to sharing power with others, is realising that it might have to," he said.

"There is just no doubt in my mind that if there were a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition, we, the Liberal Democrats, would absolutely insist that government would not break the bank.

"I think the Conservative party has changed quite dramatically since we entered into coalition with them. They have become much more ideological. They have returned much more to a lot of their familiar theme tunes. I think it would be best for everybody if the Conservative party were to rediscover a talent for actually talking to mainstream voters about mainstream concerns."

The real question is if they will still have enough power for one of the two main parties to decide that it would be worth joining with them. Latest polling data has placed the party at 9% as they continue to fail to hit double digits, with Nigel Farage's United Kingdom Party continuing to poll ahead of them despite a recent drop in support. Being seen as opportunists who will turn on their own government the minute that things start to get tough is unlikely to garner much support from either side of the aisle for another chance at power. 

Four decades and still Turkish Cypriots wait to be recognised

On Sunday thousands of people marked the 40th anniversary of Turkish intervention in Cyprus to stop the genocide of the Turkish Cypriots.

Since then North Cyprus has been held in a state if limbo, recognised by Turkey, dismissed by the rest of the world.

With the debate on Scottish Independence moving into the last days in the United Kingdom, tensions running high between separatist and government forces in Ukraine and the Israeli Gaza conflict creating more widows and orphans everyday the issue of self determination has never been so high. Long gone are the days of empires, now is the time for those who need it to have the right to self determination, if they so wish.

As the anniversary approached peers in the British House of Lords debated the ongoing split within the country. Ostensibly as a guarantor power the lords may have felt that their deliberations would have some impact on the situation. Britain's failure to intervene effectively 40 years ago, or since, to protect to freedoms of all Cypriots has diminished its responsibility. The discussion between members of the House Lords bore more in common with a patronising display regarding a disagreeable prodigal child than a serious attempt to aid Turkish and Greek Cypriot leaders to find an agreeable solution.

A voice of reason and honesty Lord Maginnis of Drumglass was one of the few to make a stand for the Turkish Cypriots and criticised Britain's role in the situation thus far.

"I will be critical of the role that for more than 50 years the United Kingdom has played in terms of assisting in a solution," he said.

"It is important to know what really happened in Cyprus. It is time to stop rewriting history...How many know that EOKA-B sought to expunge every Turkish Cypriot from the island between Christmas 1963 and 1974? I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us explicitly the significance of the Akritas and Ifestos plans—the blueprint for ethnic cleansing even before we used that term."

Neither side in the conflict could be described as pure, however a fight for survival is unlikely to reveal the softer side of any nation.

"We hear about all the people who were killed when Turkey, as a guarantor power did what we, as a guarantor power, should have done—intervened to try to stop wholesale slaughter," continued Lord Maginnis. 

The 40th anniversary is sadly not the marking of four decades of freedom for the Turkish Cypriots. It is the commemoration of four decades of fighting to be recognised. Whether Cyprus is unified once again, or is officially recognised as two separate states has long since been down to the Cypriots. If Britain and the rest of the world were to try and provide genuine assistance is would be to do their duty and recognise the equal rights of the Turkish Cypriots as opposed to condemning them to an unending future as an embargoed, unrecognised nation.  

Ukraine crash is an early test for Hammond

BARELY having had time to move into his new office Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond is already facing a serious test of his ability in the role.

Yesterday's devastating crash of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 has led to recriminations from both sides of the Ukraine crisis amid fears that an already tense situation could lead to all out civil war.

Among the 298 dead passengers and flight crew lie the bodies of nine Britons. Their deaths may mean that Mr Hammond is pushed into taking a more direct response to the conflict which has engulfed Ukraine.

Speaking ahead of the European Council meeting earlier this week Prime Minister David Cameron told leaders that there needed to be a tougher stance on Ukraine. 

"There are important discussions here today, perhaps the most important is that the situation in Ukraine is unacceptable. The territorial integrity of that country is not being properly respected by Russia," he said.

"We can send a very clear message with clear actions at this council."

Following the latest dramatic events Mr Hammond will be under scrutiny to see how he can follow through on his leader's directive.

In evaluating the British stance Mr Hammond is up against conflicting statements and unconfirmed rumours regarding the cause of the crash. With a full investigation yet to be carried out mechanical failure, or pilot error cannot be totally ruled out. 

Blaming pro-Russian separatists Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said it was an "act of terrorism".

Meanwhile separatist leader Alexander Borodai blamed Ukrainian government forces. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has been accused of helping to supply hi tech  weapons to the rebels, laid responsibility for the crash with the Ukrainian government, saying: This tragedy would not have happened if there were peace on this land, if the military actions had not been renewed in southeast Ukraine.

"And, certainly, the state over whose territory this occurred bears responsibility for this awful tragedy."

No matter who finally faces responsibility for the crash Mr Hammond must be ready to deal with the escalating crisis in the region. His decision may be further complicated by the aggressive stance taken by the United States, which has already called on European nations to take a harder line in relation to the conflict.

Commenting on the tragedy U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said:

"We are horrified by the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17. There are no words adequate to express our condolences to the families of the nearly 300 victims. We offer our sympathies and support to the Governments of Malaysia and the Netherlands at this difficult time, as well as to all those whose citizens may have been on board. We are reviewing whether any American citizens were aboard the flight.

"The United States Government remains prepared to assist with a credible, international investigation any way we can, and we will continue to be in touch with all relevant partners as we seek the facts of what happened today."

The British government has already called for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council to discuss the crash. For Mr Hammond, however, it is the rapidly evolving situation which will determine how the world sees him in his new role, rather than any agreement reached by the UN. 

Strong arming Europe risks British interests

BRITISH Prime Minister has signalled that he is prepared to take on Europe once more as parliament debates limiting the powers of the European Court of Human Rights.

Following his humiliating defeat over the election of Jean Claude Juncker as the head of the European Commission Mr Cameron has seemed determined to demonstrate his strength in defending British rights in the bloc.

The bill, which Mr Cameron claims would 'reassert British sovereignty' could become his most contentious battle to date. Having loaded his cabinet with eurosceptics this week it seems as though it is a battle which he has no intention of backing down from.

If successful it could lead to Britain's expulsion from the Council of Europe, something which opponents of the bill could precipitate a forced withdrawal from the European Union.

Former Attorney General Dominic Grieves, who was replaced as part of Mr Cameron's reshuffle earlier this week, has voiced his concerns of the move, reported by the BBC as saying it could be a "legal car crash with a built-in time delay."

The proposal comes shortly after Mr Cameron helped push through emergency legislation to circumvent a European Court of Justice ruling on the holding of personal data. The speed with which the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill has been rushed through parliament has worried some peers in the House of Lords.

Labour peer Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, a QC and civil liberties campaigner, was reported as saying: "It is a serious abuse of Parliament, and the use of emergency procedures to enact laws that are controversial and have significant impact on individual rights is happening too often."

Meanwhile Mr Cameron's campaign to have newly appointed EU commissioner Lord Hill allocated one of the top spots as discussions on candidates stalled yesterday.

For Mr Cameron taking a strong stance on Europe is key to his election strategy for May 2015. In the wake of losses to the anti-Europe United Kingdom Independence Party in elections earlier this year he is in a desperate race to regain ground. With so much still to be debated in Europe he may find that by rushing legislation through he misses the long term effects on British interests. 

Lesson learned from Tea Party, UKIP threat not passed

A RECENT poll has seen support for the United Kingdom Independence Party plummet but, as shown by the American Tea Party, the threat from the far right may not have passed.

For some observers UKIP's fall from grace signals a coming back to senses of the British electorate after the party's staggering gains in the European Elections. What seems more likely is that it is just a hiatus while the anti-immigration, anti-Europe party marshals its resources ahead of next year's general election.

In 2010 analysts in America predicted that they had seen the back of the grass roots right wing Tea Party movement, which had threatened to do irreparable harm to bi-partisan relationships in both congress and the senate. As evidenced by recent election successes for the group this was more wishful thinking than reality. 

The danger in Britain is that the Conservative party follows the mindset the Republican Party had in America and sits back on its laurels believing the danger had passed.

The Guardian/ICM poll has shown Nigel Farage's UKIP dropping seven points in a month from 16% to 9%. The news for other parties though has not been overwhelmingly positive.

Analysing the results Martin Boon, director at ICM research, said: "We used to talk about parties getting themselves through the 'magic' 40% threshold before they would be in serious contention to win, but less than a year before a general election, both the big parties are currently struggling to get themselves into the middle 30s, which, of course, only the Tories managed in 2010."

Part of the problem is that many people are suffering from election fatigue, having been bombarded by political policies for the last few months. The other is that after a flurry of television and radio appearances Mr Farage is now hard at work undermining the European Union. It would be a mistake to think that he, and his party of malcontents, had disappeared from the political landscape though. 

As with the Tea Party UKIP knows that it needs to manage its resources efficiently to ensure it is prepared for the big battles. For now it just needs to wait in wings until it sees an opportunity. 

"This time last year," explained Mr Boon, "UKIP also dropped to a similar extent, from 18% in the ICM/Guardian May 2013 poll to 12% the following June." 

By loading his new cabinet with eurosceptics and taking a harder line in his negotiations with Europe Prime Minister David Cameron may help to keep the UKIP threat at bay. With ten months still to go until the election, however, it would be a mistake to think that we have seen the last of Mr Farage and his entourage.  

Clean sweep for Cameron

David Cameron's highly anticipated cabinet reshuffle is starting to looking more like a clearing of the old guard than a change for the better. 

Just as Tony Blair tried to reinvent his party into New Labour Mr Cameron's changes are being seen by some analysts as a clean sweep to try and change the party and recoup ground after recent humiliating losses to UKIP and over Europe.

The two most notable scalps to step down are Ken Clark and William Hague.

Known eurosceptic Phillip Hammond is expected to leave his post as defence secretary, leaving space for Ian Duncan Smith to move out of the Department for Work and Pensions, where he has had a controversial time as the minister.

Despite reflecting a rise in Eurosceptic ministers the real focus of the reshuffle is the increase in the number of female members of the cabinet. It seems unlikely that Mr Cameron will meet his 2010 election pledge of having a third of his cabinet as women, however, this could represent the greatest move to equality in government for some time.

Explaining his decision to step down as foreign secretary Mr Hague said: "By the time of the general election next year, I will have served 26 years in the House of Commons and it will be 20 years since I first joined the cabinet. In government there is a balance to strike between experience on the one hand and the need for renewal on the other, and I informed the prime minister last summer that I would not be a candidate at the next general election.

"Accordingly I am stepping aside as foreign secretary, in order to focus all my efforts on supporting the government in parliament and gaining a Conservative victory in the general election – after four years in which we have transformed Britain's links with emerging economies, significantly expanded our diplomatic network and the promotion of British exports, restored the Foreign Office as a strong institution, and set a course to a reformed European Union and a referendum on our membership of it."

Ahead of official announcements analysts have predicted that  Esther McVey, the employment minister and former breakfast television presenter, Liz Truss, the childcare minister, Nicky Morgan, the women's minister, Amber Rudd, the whip, Anna Soubry, the defence minister, Priti Patel and Margot James, members of the No 10 policy board will all be given key places on Mr Cameron's cabinet.

Mr Cameron is known to have avoided too many significant reshuffles during the government's time in power, preferring instead to promote an idea of stability in his leadership. The change in so many key figures ahead of the general election next year has created some concern among political observers though.

Commenting on a report published today Emma Norris, from the Institute for Government think tank warned that the reshuffle was "ill advised" with so many big policy announcements due before May.

"Any new minister has a big learning curve to climb – and if moved into post in July 2014, not long to climb it. The prime minister needs to balance the desire to refresh with the need to hang on to those who are at the forefront of overseeing his key reforms," she said.

"With the long-awaited reshuffle imminent, there are likely to be several changes among junior ministers. While this may or may not make for good party management, it threatens to disrupt policy implementation at the point when stability and focus are needed most."

Mr Cameron's new cabinet may play well with female voters, concerned about the lack of representation in government, and the increasing number eurosceptics. The loss of so much experience with the replacement of the Tory old guard, a continuing dominance of middle aged, affluent white men and a preponderance of 'yes men' in his inner circle could mean that Mr Cameron's ostensibly cynical electioneering gambit may backfire though as he fails to govern effectively over the coming months.

 

Support grows for right to die

Lord Falconer of Thoroton former Lord Chancellor has expressed fears that a sensitive bill laying out plans for assisted dying could be wrecked by opponents before it gets going

Lord Falconer was reported on Glastonbury as saying: "I fear that somebody may put a wrecking amendment down. The way you kill it is you put a motion down referring it to a select committee not a bill committee. That finishes it off for that session. I am urging all of my supporters to come on Friday to vote down such a motion."

Lord Falconers fears come after a weekend which saw high profile religious figures place their support behind the assisted dying campaign.

In a column written or the Observer newspaper former Anglican Archbishop of South Africa Desmond Tutu has called the prolonging of life in certain cases as an "affront to dignity".

In his column the 82-year-old Mr Tutu said: "I think when you need machines to help you breathe, then you have to ask questions about the quality of life being experienced and about the way money is being spent."

Specifically commenting on the measures used to keep his old friend and historic South African leader Nelson Mandela alive, and be photographed meeting world leaders when he was not fully aware his surroundings.

Mr Tutu said: "You could see Madiba [Nelson Mandela] was not fully there. He did not speak. He was not connecting. My friend was no longer himself. It was an affront to Madiba's dignity.

"Yes, I think a lot of people would be upset if I said I wanted assisted dying. I would say I wouldn't mind actually."

He said: "I have been fortunate to spend my life working for dignity for the living. Now I wish to apply my mind to the issue of dignity for the dying. I revere the sanctity of life - but not at any cost."

His comments come only days after the ex Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey expressed his support for Lord Falconers bill. Lord Carey, who has previously voiced opposition to assisted dying, explained his change of heart in the Daily Mail. Placing himself in direct opposition to the official Church of England line Lord Carey said that it was not "anti-Christian" to support the bill.

Lord Falconer has commented on the support as a further reason why he believes the bill should pass:  "I thought [Carey's intervention, in an article for the Daily Mail] was profoundly significant. It seemed to me to express views held by very many committed Anglicans. It provided real leadership for the alternative view. He made absolutely clear that there is no Christian reason to oppose assisted suicide. I respect the views of those who oppose. The significance of the Carey and the Tutu interventions is that there is nothing anti-Christian about supporting assisted dying."

The bill would not make assisted suicide legal, however, I passed it would mark a milestone in the campaign to provide the terminally ill, and those with no quality of life, the rights already granted to animals, the right to die with dignity.

 

Strikes will divide more than unite

MORE than a million public sector workers will strike today primarily over pay and pensions disputes.

Six of the United Kingdom's largest unions will be represented in the strikes which are likely to cause public services to grind to a halt and lead to trouble for millions more private sector employees.

There is still a culture among many union members in Britain that anyone who does not support action of this scale is a bourgeois class traitor. This view, however, fails to take into account the changing structure of the British working classes, with public sector workers rapidly becoming a class of their own.

Figures used by the Labour Party's largest backer, Unite, from a Survation poll claim to show mass public support for the strike action. On closer examination, however, the data is not so clear cut. As with any poll leading questions and limited selection criteria for respondents can lead to skewed results.

In defence of the action TUC general secretary Frances O'Grady said: "Across the public sector workers are on strike today to say enough is enough.

"Year after year pay has failed to keep up with the cost of living."

What many have not looked at, however, is the practical impossibility of creating a fair wage which meets the living wage. As wages increase then so to must prices to allow for the increased costs. Thereby an inflationary spiral is created forcing the living wage ever higher. For public sector workers this may not be an overwhelming concern. Their feeling is that they can always strike again if they need to pressure the government into paying them more.

Millions of private sector workers on the minimum wage, zero hour contracts and uncertain employment futures don't have the luxury of blackmail to raise their pay though. It is these people who have been forgotten and yet will be most affected if the strikers achieve their aims.

Obviously not all public sector workers support strike action, however, their voices have a tendency to be drowned out by the drum beating of the leadership.

Prime Minister David Cameron has proposed new legislation to ensure that all union members have a say in future strike action.

Speaking to reporters Mr Cameron highlighted teacher's union NUT and its use of a two year old ballot to justify current action: "I think the time has come for setting a threshold," he told the House of Commons at prime minister's questions. "I mentioned the NUT strike earlier, the strike ballot took place in 2012. It's based on a 27% turnout. How can it possibly be right for our children's education to be disrupted by trade unions acting in that way? It is time to legislate and it will be in the Conservative manifesto."

Knowing that legislation requiring the majority of members, rather than just those who turn up, to vote in favour would severely damage the ability to take unilateral action has scared the union leaderships.

Len McCluskey, the Unite general secretary, in a demonstration if his lack of knowledge of a multi-party electoral system, attacked Mr Cameron's proposal to rework strike laws. 

"The whiff of hypocrisy coming from Cameron as he harps on about voting thresholds is overwhelming," he said. "Not a single member of his cabinet won over 50% of the vote in the 2010 election, with Cameron himself getting just 43% of the potential vote."

Despite all their claims of worker solidarity the powerful unions have shown that they only care for a small proportion of the British public. Rather than uniting workers if this latest action succeeds then it is likely to widen the gap within society and lead many in the private sector to long lasting economic decline.

  

Lies, damned lies and government statistics

THE objectivity of government figures has been called into question this week amid allegations of spin and misrepresentation.

The most recent case surrounds the removal of a post by the House of Commons Library which allegedly criticised government claims regarding a fall in waiting times at hospital accident and emergency units. According to some reports analysis by the think tank disproved assertions made by David Cameron during Prime Ministers Questions on Wednesday.

It accused the Prime Minister of using a "simplistic reading" of statistics to justify his claim that "average waiting time" in NHS hospitals had fallen from 77 minutes under Labour to just 30 minutes.

The analysis stated: "The data does not show that the average time in A&E has fallen since 2008. Rather, the typical total time in A&E has risen (for admitted patients, at least), and the typical time to treatment has remained static.

"It is welcome that the rich data on the amount of time patients spend in A&E is becoming part of the wider political debate on the NHS. But in order for it to be useful and informative, it must be discussed in a way which fully respects the data."

The post has since been taken down and replaced with a message which said: "The blog post 'Have A&E waiting times fallen?' has been removed by the House of Commons Library as it does not meet our expected standards of impartiality.

"A revised post will be uploaded as soon as possible."

Despite its removal Labour ministers have been quick to seize upon its content, describing Mr Cameron's use of the statistics as "cynical spin".

An accounting for Labour leader Ed Miliband's own use of facts and figures has also been requested this week by the Conservative MP Matt Hancock after he claimed that "independent experts say four fifths of all new private sector jobs created since 2010 are in London".

In a direct letter to Mr Miliband Mr Hancock said: "The statistic you make reference to is from an out of date Centre for Cities report which only looked at the regional labour market between 2010 and 2012.

The most recent, unadjusted ONS statistics for the last four years (Q1 2010 to Q1 2014) suggest that London has accounted for less than 1 in 4 net additional private sector jobs created (21.7%).

"I know that you would not want to inadvertently mislead the British public into believing that the employment situation is worse than it actually is.

"Indeed since you appear to have put this erroneous statistic at the heart of your new policy launch, I believe that it would be only proper for you to issue a full and public correction, and in doing so, accept that our long-term economic plan is helping to create jobs across Britain."

Earlier this week it was revealed by the BBC that 16 of the last 47 complaints issued by the United Kingdom Statistics Authority over misuse of data by the government had been sent to the Department of Work and Pensions.

It is not the first time revelations of misleading information have plagued Ian Duncan Smith's department. In March the Commons work and pensions committee also criticised the DWP for shortcomings in the handling of claims for Personal Independence Payments (PIP).

At the time Dame Anne Begg MP, the committee chair, said: "Statistics should be used to shed light on policy implementation, not to prop up established views or feed preconceptions."

Manipulation of data has always been known to occur in politics. The old adage "lies, damned lies and statistics" is well founded. With so much access to information nowadays, however, politicians may find it harder to use massaged data to demonstrate a point to an increasingly cynical electorate. 

Not so united on EU

DAVID Cameron's humiliating defeat in Europe last week may have failed to cement Britain's position in the bloc but it has reinvigorated the calls for a referendum.

Conservative MP Bob Neill has confirmed that he will be reintroducing the European Union Parliament Referendum Bill in the next parliamentary session, which could see the UK leave the Union by 2017.

Mr Neill has stated that while personally he would prefer that Britain stays within the EU the final decision should be placed in the hands of the electorate.

“I would prefer a successful outcome, but you never go into a negotiation showing your hand or ruling out any course of action.”

He added: “I’d like to vote to stay but I could vote to leave. But I hope we do not come to that situation.”

Meanwhile, having pledged support for the Labour Party at the General Election, Unite leader Len McClusky has added his voice to the debate. Mr McClusky has called on Labour officials to throw their support behind a referendum.

Stating the union's position Mr McClusky said: "It calls on Labour not to box itself in on the referendum question. This issue has bedevilled British politics for decades. For much of that time it has been the Tories who have had to deal with divisions in their ranks over Europe. But the next general election will be different. Both Ukip and the Tories will be offering a referendum on the issue of Britain's membership."

Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls has dismissed the idea as "silly".

Mr Balls told BBC2's Newsnight: "That would be a silly thing for us to say.

"We made a very clear commitment: if there is any proposal in the next parliament for a transfer of powers to Brussels we will have an in/out referendum.

"We are not proposing a referendum now because we think to spend two or three years blighting investment and undermining our economy on the prospect of a referendum which David Cameron says he is going to have after he gets an unknown package of reforms would be bad for jobs and investment.

"If Len McCluskey is supporting the David Cameron position, I disagree with Len McCluskey."

Earlier this week Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg fended off moves by senior members of his party to join with other parties on taking a stance on the referendum.

Speaking in defence of the Deputy Prime Minister's position A senior Lib Dem was reported as telling journalists: "Our views are clear. When the rules of the European Union change there will be a referendum as we have enshrined in law. Some people may think it would be seductive to change our position on Europe but we are not going to spend the next ten months banging on about the referendum bill. We will leave that to others."

While the debate is sure to intensify as the General Election draws closer for now the decision hinges on whether Mr Cameron will continue his campaign in Europe.

Answering MP's questions the Prime Minister said: "I think it is in the national interest to renegotiate our position in Europe, to secure the changes I have set out. I don’t start the negotiations believing we won’t achieve those things, I set out wanting to achieve them… but I will always do what is in the national interest."

Security is preferable to liberty for the majority

DESPITE being widely publicised and beset by criticism people just don't seem that concerned about the level of government surveillance on their lives.

While civic rights groups have condemned proposals for an increase in official monitoring of phone calls and social media figures showing people's opposition to the concept reflect a lack of interest by the majority of those polled.

Last week former Defence Secretary Liam Fox called for an increase in the level of surveillance to protect against British nationals fighting in Syria returning and causing problems in the UK.

 There are those who say if we don't get involved, if we hunker down then we will be fine. There will be no backlash. That is utterly, utterly wrong because the jihadists don't hate us because of what we do. They hate us because of who we are. We can't change that. It is our values and our history that they detest more than anything else," said Mr Fox.

"The whole area of intercept needs to be looked at. We have got a real debate, and it is a genuine debate in a democracy, between the libertarians who say the state must not get too powerful and pretty much the rest of us who say the state must protect itself.

"If required it is the first duty of the state to protect its citizens … it is a real worry and it is a problem that is going to be with us for a very long time. At heart it is an ideological battle and we have to realise that we have to win the ideological battle as well."

Civil liberties groups immediately hit back at the idea, calling for more transparency and an independent review of current legislation.

Emma Carr, acting director of Big Brother Watch, said: “It would be reckless to attempt to to legislate on further surveillance powers before a comprehensive, independent review of the existing legal framework has taken place.

“A broad political consensus has emerged in support of a review, with the Deputy Prime Minister, the Shadow Home Secretary and the Home Affairs Committee all recognising that the public should know more about how our surveillance laws are being used and whether the current oversight mechanisms are adequate.

“We know from examples in the US that there is far more information that could be published without jeopardising security. Greater transparency would build trust and improve accountability yet the data being recorded by the police and agencies is seriously inadequate. This does not require legislation and should be addressed by the Home Secretary without delay.”

Instead of backing the calls as wished by Ms Carr Home Secretary Theresa May has made it clear that she wants to see changes to the law making it easier for the government to carry out surveillance on individuals.

"I know some people like the thought that the internet should become a libertarian paradise, but that will entail complete freedom not just for law-abiding people but for terrorists and criminals," she told the attendees at the Lord Mayor's Defence and Security Lecture at Mansion House, in the City of London.

“I do not believe that is what the public wants. Loss of capability, not mass surveillance nor illegal and unaccountable behaviour, is the great danger we face.

“The real problem is not that we have built an over-mighty state, but that the state is finding it harder to fulfil its most basic duty, which is to protect the public,” she said.

With a YouGov poll carried out late last year showing a majority stating that the current level of surveillance was either just right or not enough it seems as though Mrs May could have her supporters.

The poll, released long after the revelations from former NSA analyst Edward Snowden as to the level of government intrusion into people's lives, had 42 per cent agreeing with the current balance and 22 per cent wanting more surveillance. Only 19 per cent of those polled actually said that they supported a reduction in monitoring.

With scare stories hitting the press on an increasingly regular basis those fighting for civil liberty at find out the they are in a losing battle as people opt for security.  

Miliband's plan looks like revamped Big Society

BRITISH Labour Leader Ed Miliband's latest push to draw voters has all the makings of a little bit of history repeating.

After spending years dismissing Prime Minister David Cameron's 'Big Society' as a flight of fancy his latest policy initiative seems to have taken more from it than he may care to admit.

Commissioned by former Transport Secretary Lord Adonis Mr Miliband's "Mending the fractured economy" initiative looks more like an updated homage to the Conservative's Big Society than a genuinely new approach. For one thing it is the second time Mr Miliband has launched such a plan, having failed to garner much coverage or support in February. This time, however, he plans on going all out.

Ahead of his official announcement later today in Leeds Mr Miliband released a statement in which he said: "The next Labour government will ensure city and country regions, like this powerhouse economy in Leeds, get control of business rates revenues. So that any extra money raised here thanks to the efforts of you and everyone in this great city can be invested here.

"I know the next Labour government cannot solve every problem by pulling levers in Whitehall. We can only do it by working with, harnessing the ideas, energy and the dynamism of great businesses, cities and county regions so you can help build and share in a more successful and prosperous Britain."

Devolving power from Westminster to communities, supporting enterprise and innovation, and more emphasis on small businesses, these all may sound vaguely familiar and that would be because they are. 

Mr Miliband has come under fire recently for his scattershot approach to policies, accused by some as looking like a shopping list rather than an agenda. With his latest proposal he won't have done much to silence the critics.

The basic principle of the policy has been supported by some business groups, including trade body EEF which was reported as saying: "There will also be a financial impact and business will want to know whether it will be targeted to raise some of this revenue through additional taxation. Above all else businesses want consistency and certainty, so that current policies to promote growth and investment such as export support from UKTI, R&D tax credits and support for innovation through the TSB are not reduced.”

Concerns have been raised, however, as with Mr Cameron's previous idea, as to how it will be funded. Labour has proposed releasing £30billion in government funding, it is the tax implications which have been widely reported as of being most concerning to certain groups.

Matthew Fell, director of Competitive Markets at the CBI, told journalists: “The broader tax environment matters to business. Although we welcome the idea of broadening the sources of finance available, particularly to SMEs, the changes shouldn’t be at the expense of the wider tax environment. On the face of it, an ACE is a good idea. But if that’s at the expense of the headline rate of corporation tax then businesses would probably prefer to leave it.”

Meanwhile Richard Rose of BDO was reported in some newspapers as saying: "Introducing a relief to replace all this would require a fundamental re-writing of a lot of tax law which would cause considerable disruption.

"Business likes stability. For a long time now, debt has been tax deductible and equity has not been - and to introduce a whole new concept could create a lot of economic uncertainty.”

As with the Big Society before it this latest plan may turn out to be nothing more than a paper policy. It looks good written down but ultimately will prove unworkable as the costs and obstacles become clearer over time. 

Miliband's plan looks like revamped Big Society

BRITISH Labour Leader Ed Miliband's latest push to draw voters has all the makings of a little bit of history repeating.

After spending years dismissing Prime Minister David Cameron's 'Big Society' as a flight of fancy his latest policy initiative seems to have taken more from it than he may care to admit.

Commissioned by former Transport Secretary Lord Adonis Mr Miliband's "Mending the fractured economy" initiative looks more like an updated homage to the Conservative's Big Society than a genuinely new approach. For one thing it is the second time Mr Miliband has launched such a plan, having failed to garner much coverage or support in February. This time, however, he plans on going all out.

Ahead of his official announcement later today in Leeds Mr Miliband released a statement in which he said: "The next Labour government will ensure city and country regions, like this powerhouse economy in Leeds, get control of business rates revenues. So that any extra money raised here thanks to the efforts of you and everyone in this great city can be invested here.

"I know the next Labour government cannot solve every problem by pulling levers in Whitehall. We can only do it by working with, harnessing the ideas, energy and the dynamism of great businesses, cities and county regions so you can help build and share in a more successful and prosperous Britain."

Devolving power from Westminster to communities, supporting enterprise and innovation, and more emphasis on small businesses, these all may sound vaguely familiar and that would be because they are. 

Mr Miliband has come under fire recently for his scattershot approach to policies, accused by some as looking like a shopping list rather than an agenda. With his latest proposal he won't have done much to silence the critics.

The basic principle of the policy has been supported by some business groups, including trade body EEF which was reported as saying: "There will also be a financial impact and business will want to know whether it will be targeted to raise some of this revenue through additional taxation. Above all else businesses want consistency and certainty, so that current policies to promote growth and investment such as export support from UKTI, R&D tax credits and support for innovation through the TSB are not reduced.”

Concerns have been raised, however, as with Mr Cameron's previous idea, as to how it will be funded. Labour has proposed releasing £30billion in government funding, it is the tax implications which have been widely reported as of being most concerning to certain groups.

Matthew Fell, director of Competitive Markets at the CBI, told journalists: “The broader tax environment matters to business. Although we welcome the idea of broadening the sources of finance available, particularly to SMEs, the changes shouldn’t be at the expense of the wider tax environment. On the face of it, an ACE is a good idea. But if that’s at the expense of the headline rate of corporation tax then businesses would probably prefer to leave it.”

Meanwhile Richard Rose of BDO was reported in some newspapers as saying: "Introducing a relief to replace all this would require a fundamental re-writing of a lot of tax law which would cause considerable disruption.

"Business likes stability. For a long time now, debt has been tax deductible and equity has not been - and to introduce a whole new concept could create a lot of economic uncertainty.”

As with the Big Society before it this latest plan may turn out to be nothing more than a paper policy. It looks good written down but ultimately will prove unworkable as the costs and obstacles become clearer over time. 

Miliband's plan looks like revamped Big Society

BRITISH Labour Leader Ed Miliband's latest push to draw voters has all the makings of a little bit of history repeating.

After spending years dismissing Prime Minister David Cameron's 'Big Society' as a flight of fancy his latest policy initiative seems to have taken more from it than he may care to admit.

Commissioned by former Transport Secretary Lord Adonis Mr Miliband's "Mending the fractured economy" initiative looks more like an updated homage to the Conservative's Big Society than a genuinely new approach. For one thing it is the second time Mr Miliband has launched such a plan, having failed to garner much coverage or support in February. This time, however, he plans on going all out.

Ahead of his official announcement later today in Leeds Mr Miliband released a statement in which he said: "The next Labour government will ensure city and country regions, like this powerhouse economy in Leeds, get control of business rates revenues. So that any extra money raised here thanks to the efforts of you and everyone in this great city can be invested here.

"I know the next Labour government cannot solve every problem by pulling levers in Whitehall. We can only do it by working with, harnessing the ideas, energy and the dynamism of great businesses, cities and county regions so you can help build and share in a more successful and prosperous Britain."

Devolving power from Westminster to communities, supporting enterprise and innovation, and more emphasis on small businesses, these all may sound vaguely familiar and that would be because they are. 

Mr Miliband has come under fire recently for his scattershot approach to policies, accused by some as looking like a shopping list rather than an agenda. With his latest proposal he won't have done much to silence the critics.

The basic principle of the policy has been supported by some business groups, including trade body EEF which was reported as saying: "There will also be a financial impact and business will want to know whether it will be targeted to raise some of this revenue through additional taxation. Above all else businesses want consistency and certainty, so that current policies to promote growth and investment such as export support from UKTI, R&D tax credits and support for innovation through the TSB are not reduced.”

Concerns have been raised, however, as with Mr Cameron's previous idea, as to how it will be funded. Labour has proposed releasing £30billion in government funding, it is the tax implications which have been widely reported as of being most concerning to certain groups.

Matthew Fell, director of Competitive Markets at the CBI, told journalists: “The broader tax environment matters to business. Although we welcome the idea of broadening the sources of finance available, particularly to SMEs, the changes shouldn’t be at the expense of the wider tax environment. On the face of it, an ACE is a good idea. But if that’s at the expense of the headline rate of corporation tax then businesses would probably prefer to leave it.”

Meanwhile Richard Rose of BDO was reported in some newspapers as saying: "Introducing a relief to replace all this would require a fundamental re-writing of a lot of tax law which would cause considerable disruption.

"Business likes stability. For a long time now, debt has been tax deductible and equity has not been - and to introduce a whole new concept could create a lot of economic uncertainty.”

As with the Big Society before it this latest plan may turn out to be nothing more than a paper policy. It looks good written down but ultimately will prove unworkable as the costs and obstacles become clearer over time.