Terror laws create division

DESPITE only returning from summer recess on Monday the British coalition government is already mired in controversy and disputes with proposed anti-terror laws.

Prime Minister David Cameron has come into conflict with Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and civil liberties groups over plans to tackle extremist elements in the UK.

The proposals come in the wake of revelations that approximately 500 Britons have travelled to Syria to join with the fundamentalist Islamic State organisation. 

Speaking to MP's on Monday Mr Cameron set out his commitment to the new laws: "It is abhorrent that people who declare their allegiance elsewhere can return to the United Kingdom and pose a threat to our national security.

"We are clear in principle that what we need is a targeted, discretionary power to allow us to exclude British nationals from the UK."

Civil liberties groups and MP's have expressed reservations over the issue amid fears that the far reaching policies could be used to curtail human rights.

Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve warned that some of the concepts in the proposed legislation would be a "mistake".

"I do share concerns that have been expressed that the suggestion British nationals, however horribly they may be alleged to have behaved, should be prevented from returning to this country. Not only does it offend principles of international law, it would actually offend basic principles of our own common law as well," he said.

Among critics from within the Conservative Liberal Democrat coalition is Sir Menzies Campbell who told BBC Radio 4's The World This Weekend: "I think it's rather difficult and it might well constitute illegality. To render citizens stateless is regarded as illegal in international law.

"To render them stateless temporarily, which seems to me the purpose of what's being proposed, can also I think be described as illegal.

"At the very least it's the kind of question that will be tested here in our own courts and perhaps also in the European Court of Human Rights."

The row has reinvigorated the debate over freedoms within the UK which were addressed last year following the detention of journalist David Miranda. At the time the National Union of Journalists released a statement warning of the impact upon the freedom of the press and democracy.

Michelle Stanistreet, NUJ general secretary, said:

"The shocking detention of David Miranda for the crime of being the partner of a respected investigative journalist points to the growing abuse of so-called anti-terror laws in the UK...

"This is not an isolated problem. The NUJ believes that journalists are coming under more scrutiny and surveillance, being stopped at borders and their work interfered with, simply for doing their job."

If passed Mr Cameron's plans to protect Britain against suspected terrorists could undermine the very values which he hopes to defend. For those travelling to conflict zones, whether for charitable or journalistic purposes, this could be inherently concerning. 

To combat extremism Mr Cameron needs to realise that by creating yet more feelings of isolation and separation within communities he is only magnifying the problem.

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. 

Lord Butler missed the fiscal problem

THE differences in priorities for the United Kingdom coalition government has brought to the fore the problems with having two opposing forces in power together. Since its formation the Conservative/Liberal Democrat government has faced a string of criticisms over inabilities to create cohesive strategies and policies on a range of topics.

The most recent judgement on the possible ineffectiveness of the coalition government has perhaps been its harshest though. In a statement to the House former Cabinet secretary Lord Butler of Brockwell condemned the government for the failure of the parties to work together and warned that it was “looking divided and weak, more concerned with washing their dirty linen in public than with running the country.” He continued by stating that “the country would have been better served by bringing this Parliament to an end now so that a new Government could be elected with a fresh mandate.”

While the Tories and Liberal Democrats have had a number of notable disagreements, particularly over free school meals and knife crime in recent weeks, it is not just its differences in beliefs which are causing problems though. With recent polling figures showing that neither Labour or Conservatives have enough public support for an all out majority should an election be called tomorrow, and the Liberal Democrats sliding to fourth place behind the right wing United Kingdom Independence Party, Britain’s political landscape is undergoing radical changes.

Gone are the days of the clear two party system, with coalition governments looking to become more common in the future as the UK follows in the steps of other European countries. Meanwhile party-centered politics have started to move towards a centre ground with little differences apparent between the three old guard parties at times. It is perhaps for this reason that groups such as UKIP are able to gain ground as the electorate attempts to find some means of expressing its views.

Overall, however, it is the difference in economic ideals which remains the greatest obstacle. At the heart of government policy is the question of affordability. Fiscal policy is a contentious matter, increasingly so when there are two parties with differing agendas attempting to agree on it.

In the financial year 2012- 2013 the total government spending was £683 billion, of which the two areas of which health and social protection received just short of half with a combined £337 billion. The allocation of these funds to maximise their efficiency has been the subject of much debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat politicians,  as was made clear in the recent storm between Education Secretary Michael Gove and School’s Minister David Laws over the financing of free school meals..

Lord Butler may be right in his statement that by calling a snap election now would avoid the two leading parties from spending the next twelve months electioneering and thereby allow the crucial work of government to continue, What he fails to take into account though is that without a coordinated financial approach from all parties the divisions are likely to reappear in the future, election or not.

Auntie’s in trouble from big brother

While it may be perfectly possible that the whole British Broadcasting Corporation Newsnight fiasco may have escaped the attention of the majority of the press outside of the United Kingdom I somehow doubt that it has gone entirely unnoticed. This is partly because as a former British journalist I am steadfastly resolute in my belief that the world hangs on every word which we print and broadcast.

Okay Newsnight messed up, in quite spectacular style; it is not the first news programme to get its facts wrong though. It probably doesn’t even rank as on the top 100. For one thing Newsnight did not actually reveal Lord McAlpine’s name, which seems to be what the majority of the online commentators are accusing it of doing. If anything Newsnight’s greatest flaw, and by extension that of now former Director General George Entwistle, was to underestimate the power of social media and the internet. What was once the purview, more or less, of the investigative journalist is now in the remit of a 10-year-old with a computer.

While this may have become apparent to a number of people it seems to be something which the more traditional elements of the press still have trouble coming to grips with. The recent debacle with the BBC has proved that the old divide between broadcast and print journalism still has some grounding, despite having a common enemy of sorts in the internet. The BBC’s downfall has been exacerbated by the reaction of the print press and the clear determination to take some of the attention away from the actions being raked over in the Leveson enquiry. This is a fact which has not been lost on the Chairman of the BBC Trust, Lord Patten.
“I think my job is to make sure that we now learn the lessons from the crisis,” he said. “If I don’t do that and don’t restore huge confidence and trust in the BBC then I’m sure people will tell me to take my cards and clear off,” he was reported as saying. “But I will not take my marching orders from Mr Murdoch’s newspapers.”

It isn’t just their colleagues in the press who appear to be trying to make the most out of the situation.

Auntie is under attack from big brother it would seem as politicians wade into the debate. It isn’t the first time that the British government has used a crisis at the Beeb to try and assert an additional element of control over its editorial stance. Combined with the Leveson enquiry into the press and the Saville enquiry, however, it may be that this time they get their wish.

The internet has allowed for a greater spread of information than ever before. Social media has also created a greater awareness of the power of that information and with it if not outright fear than at least a healthy respect for it. It would be a mistake though to allow that fear, or respect for, information to lead to news outlets having its control removed from their power, particularly over one misjudged and disproportionately reported on program.

Good news, bad news for PM

It has really been a good news, bad news, what was he thinking news day for Prime Minister David Cameron.

While his stance on maintaining the ban on prisoners being allowed to vote will have gained a certain mixed reception it must be his jumping the gun on hinting that there may be an improvement in the gross domestic product which will be his moment of the day to try and escape from.

The seemingly innocuous statement that there may be “good news” ahead could potentially lead the PM into very bad news situation. It is a testament to the need for carefully coordinated communications when dealing with politicians, and the press. Many people would not think of the phrase as an explosive revelation breaching regulations on the release of sensitive information.

At the end of the day, however many people will be wondering whether or not the slip means anything other than that the Office of National Statistics, which is due to release the actual figures tomorrow (Thursday 25^th October 2012), will kick up a fuss over losing its thunder. In and of itself it may mean very little, taken in a wider context though it becomes a serious matter. The markets rise and fall on the slightest whiff of information, rumour and suggestion can have as much of an impact on the price of stocks and bonds as cold hard facts, something which the ONS is keen to maintain its control over.

What it also demonstrates is that once again politicians, no matter how senior, do not appear able to maintain a confidence on something which has national importance. It would not be seen as incontrovertible that Mr Cameron made the ‘slip’ as a means by which to get ahead of the ONS releasing the figures to the press and thereby ensure that his government, which up until now has been taking something of a battering on the economy, could bask in a bit of the glory before it was eclipsed by everything else.

Instead what he has successfully done, however, is removed any good news from what could have been an incredibly positive story and turned it into another government fiasco article.

There is always the chance that Mr Cameron’s ”good news” has nothing to do with the soon to be released figures. If having received the figures at 9:30am and being one of the few politicians allowed to see them he did mean something else though then he must surely be accused once again of mistiming his comments. What appears to be the core to this case is that either the Prime Minister knowingly let slip confidential information regarding the financial markets, albeit in an oblique way, or he made an ill timed and misjudged comment about an unrelated matter which will surely demonstrate that he is unable to think about the bigger picture of what impact his statements may have. Either way it does not bode well for the Prime Minister’s communications ability for the future.

The press' whipping boy

If the recent resignation of Conservative Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell has demonstrated anything it is that the power of the press is stronger than it ever was. Unfortunately in this case it was also shown that the power which it wields can easily be subverted to suit the purposes of interest groups and lobbyists.

Andrew Mitchell’s resignation was not forced because of anything he may, or may not have said, to police officers. It was forced through a determined effort by the police federation, the press and MP’s, both opposition and from his own party. At most his comments, if they were said, merited a disciplining by the Prime Minister not resignation.

The whole situation has weakened not just the coalition government but David Cameron’s own position as Prime Minister. By exposing the Prime Minister’s key weakness, bowing to the pressure of the press, he has irredeemably opened himself and his government up to attacks from every interest group, union and protest movement who may disagree with a policy.

What has also not been stated clearly enough during this whole sorry saga in British governance is that the issue has never really been about his use of the word pleb. As insults go it is fairly tame, particularly when Mr Mitchell freely admits and apologises for using the F word in anger at the officers in question. The whole issue is one of class, or the perception thereof. 

Perhaps this is why it has grabbed the attention of the press so much. The poor downtrodden masses being once again walked over by the arrogant elite was always guaranteed to get some coverage.

The sad fact is that the coalition government has continually demonstrated far more newsworthy levels of ineptitude, as has the opposition in the interests of objectivity. Until the papers picked up on the word pleb it wouldn’t have crossed the mind of many for any other reason than being an anachronistic word with little to no relevance anymore.  Reporting the hard facts, however, and attempting to find relevant news stories is far harder, and seemingly therefore less important, than playing on outmoded concepts of class.

George Osborne’s mistimed train ticket fiasco has if anything highlighted just how class orientated the press is becoming in regards to the articles which they are running. The fact that a government minister failed to purchase the correct ticket should if anything demonstrate that he is just like the vast majority of the so called plebs who the papers are sticking up for, rather than being a elitist who feels that he is above the rules of the little people.

We are no longer living in an era where the class which you are born into determines the rest of your life. We live in world where anyone can make anything of themselves which they wish, provided that they are willing to put the work in to do it. The class system in the UK is not about holding people back, it is about giving them a reason to fight and strive to improve their lot in life.