Money talks, politicians lie

AS THE General Election campaigns continue to roll on in Britain it is become clear that politicians are willing to forgo economic sense in favour of votes.

Even the simplest concept, don't spend money you don't have, seems to have been forgotten as the number of unfunded manifesto pledges increases.

It is common knowledge that manifestos are wish lists which should be viewed with a sceptical lense. This doesn't mean however that parties can put anything in them in the hope that no-one notices that it is fiscally irresponsible.

Governments do have the option to borrow if necessary to fund policies if they feel it is worth increasing the national debt to push them through, so perhaps it is unfair to write off policies which appear unsustainable at this point.

What is most worrying is the way in which policies appear so focused on grabbing votes that they have ignored the potential long term harm that they will cause. Possibly the most noticeable of these is the minimum wage. For many people seeing that a party is prepared to offer a £10 minimum wage sounds like a winning idea, after all who doesn't like the idea of more money in their pocket. The problem is that it won't actually mean more money for individuals. 

Firstly many small businesses already struggle with minimum wages as it is. An increase, particularly such a dramatic one, does not mean the companies sales will increase so income is unlikely to change immediately. This means that to pay the new wage the business needs to increase prices, or lay off staff. 

Where prices stay static, lack of willingness by customers to pay increased prices for example, then unemployment will rise. As unemployment rises there are less people willing to pay increased prices, and so the cycle goes on. The argument that minimum wages should meet cost of living is likewise limiting the scope. If minimum wages are increased then people earning above the minimum wage, quite logically, will want an increase in pay, after all why work in one job if you can earn the same money doing something which requires less skill or stress. As these wages increase the cycle begins again driving up prices as larger and larger firms raise prices to meet the new wage costs and maintain profit margins.

Then there is the toxic issue of the foreign age budget. One party in particular seems to determined to develop the argument of "why are we giving money to foreigners?"  The simple answer is that you spend money to make money.

No matter how it is wrapped up and packaged foreign aid is aimed at stabilising the international system, allowing for development, and gradually through many steps leading to a flowing import export market. It is not a purely philanthropic matter no matter what some people may think. Quite simply the foreign aid budget brings more money into the country than goes out, it just does it in a roundabout and not always clear manner.

When parties try and explain how they are going to fund a policy they think only of the short five year effects on the treasury. The danger is that they forget that in a market economy the knock on effect for inflows and outflows will linger for many more years than this.

Threat to US and Britain on doorstep following Iraq escalation

WITH America and Britain unwilling to become involved in the escalating conflict in Iraq fears have arisen of home-grown terrorists joining the fighting in the Middle East.

Concerns have started to grow that British and American nationals have been recruited by fundamentalist groups to fight in Iraq and Syria.

The American Federal Bureau of Investigation is currently investigating allegations that approximately 15 men travelled to Syria to join up with groups against the hardline forces of President Bashar A-Assad. On Thursday a spokesman from  the FBI’s Minneapolis office, Kyle Loven, was reported as saying that the bureau had received information indicating that 10 to 15 men from the region's large Somali community had travelled from the Minneapolis-St Paul area to Syria.

While it has been known for some time that both British and American nationals have been joining with terrorist groups in the Middle East fears that some may have linked up with the ultra-radical group the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) have added a new dimension to the nature of international interference in the region.

According to a statement from the office of British Prime Minister the insurgency in Iraq is part of an “arc of extremism” which is starting to engulf the Middle East. The British Secret Intelligence Service, commonly known as MI6, suspects that approximately 500 British citizens have travelled to Syria to take part in the campaign, and may now have joined up with ISIS in Iraq.

The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman was reported as saying: “Our Security Services and all the relevant agencies will be monitoring those types of risks very closely. Clearly there is a very porous border between parts of Syria and parts of Iraq.

“As the PM has said, the greatest extremist activity and jihadist threats to the international community are in Syria. We need to keep these things under very close watch.”

While America and Britain have claimed that they have no intention of re-engaging in Iraq to combat the growing insurgent threat both countries may find that the conflict is brought to their doors.

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.

Europe needs to look to future before it runs out of fuel over Russia

EUROPE faces a looming energy crisis as reserves of fossils fuels reach a critical point. According to research conducted by the Global Sustainability Institute at Anglia Ruskin University the UK has less than five years worth of coal and three years of gas remaining from its domestic supply. The situation is even worse for France and Italy which could run out of fossil fuels within a year.

The United Kingdom is already reaching its highest levels of dependence since 1976. The news is likely to push this figure up as officials attempt to maintain what little resources the country still has. Based the data, however, large areas of Europe will be entirely reliant on foreign sources of fuel within the next five years.

With Russia’s supplies looking set to last for the next 50 years it may be the best source of supply to keep the lights on. While the West pushes for increased sanctions against Russian officials in response to the crisis in Ukraine it seems likely that they will come to nothing. President Putin’s government looks set to hold all the cards in the on-going gamesmanship between nations as Europe looks towards them for their energy needs.

Europe’s dependency on Russian gas and coal is already on a dramatic rise, with its own domestic supply about to run out this rise will only continues. As much as Europe may wish to provide support for Ukraine and demonstrate its condemnation of Russian aggression it may find that its own domestic needs start to take precedence.

Britain is already looking to other sources to prevent Russia having a stranglehold on the country. Having witnessed its gas supply declining over a sustained period it is sourcing the majority of its foreign supply from Norway. If Europe wants to ensure that it is not held over the proverbial fuel barrel then it must also start to find alternative suppliers for its coal supply.

Meanwhile the British government is placing its hope in renewable energy. A spokesman from the Department of Energy and Climate Change stated: “The UK is one of the most energy secure countries in the world thanks to the combination of our own reserves, our diverse sources of imported energy and our focus on increasing clean, home-grown energy in the UK - which includes nuclear, renewables and carbon capture and storage. 

 "As well as attracting record investment into our energy security since 2010, the UK is leading globally on energy security, particularly through the G7 which has agreed to take global action to improve energy security, and in getting a deal in the EU to cut carbon emissions by 40% by 2030."

Based on figures from the same department, however, renewable energy only accounted for 15.5 per cent of overall energy consumption by quarter two in 2013. Despite being a 60 per cent rise from 2012 if Britain is rely on its renewable energy to cover its imminent shortfall then it has a long way to go.

 

A likely source, to ensure security within Europe, could be Germany, which according to statistics has approximately 250 years worth of coal left, five times as much as Russia. With Britain becoming increasing Eurosceptic, however, it must now be looking at the long term consequences of distancing itself from its European neighbours.

 

The rise of the right

AS EUROPE gears up for the May 22^nd European Elections the rise of right wing politics has become increasingly noticeable. This is not isolated to the European Union though.

In America the Tea Party Movement has made inroads into mainstream politics. The United Australia Party may not be seeing the gains of some right wing parties, however, it is starting to have an impact on the political establishment. Despite, or possibly because of, being led by a comedian Beppo Grillo’s Five Star Movement in Italy has surged forward, challenging the old guard of the Democratic Party and Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia. Nowhere seems immune from the politics of fear these groups play upon.

It was only a few short years ago that groups such as the American Tea Party Movement, a group which United Kingdom Independence Leader, Nigel Farage, has revelled in being compared to, were seen as fringe and dismissible. In the current political environment they are starting to pose a problem for the main political parties.

In America and Britain it seems unlikely that the establishment could be overturned by these groups. In 2015 UKIP may gain a couple of seats, this would be a far cry from the number they would need to put them in a position of serious power though. The threat they pose is by splitting the vote of the more moderate parties and diverting the debate away from areas where it needs to be focused.

For countries such as Italy and Germany, where coalition governments are more frequent than in the US and Britain, these parties can have a genuine influence on the way the country is run. For groups such as Tea Party or UKIP, however, they are fighting against an entrenched establishment where it is a near certainty that one of two parties will be in power.

This has not stopped them from shouting their causes from the rooftops, however. It is perhaps even more of incentive to create ever more outrageous and right wing agendas for these groups than ones which know they may have a chance of power, and therefore would have to meet their manifesto pledges.

UKIP has claimed that they will fight back against unlimited immigration from the European Union, while failing to address how they will do this, or exactly how far reaching the levels of immigration will be. In its EU election manifesto for example UKIP claims that the Office of National Statistics estimates from 2010 that the UK population will rise by 3 million by 2020 through immigration. The ONS actually forecasts a growth of 4.9million, of which 56 per cent would be from ‘natural increase’.

Additional figures provided by UKIP also fail to take into account the rate of emigration from Britain by naturalised citizens. The same story is repeated in America with the Tea Party Movement. Statistics are taken out of context, or fabricated. Both groups use volume and self proclaimed righteous anger ahead of genuine debate and solution.

In part this rise of the right wing has come about from the groups themselves. An increase in communications technology has made it easier for them to reach the electorate, and by repeating the same phrases enough they have instilled them into the minds of people as fact.

An increasing level of fear and disillusionment in the system has given them the crack to force themselves into. Membership of the more mainstream political parties has diminished over the years, with approximately only 1 per cent of the UK belonging to a party,  as people lose faith in the process. Fear of terrorism and crime is also on the increase, which gives certain right wing elements the fuel they need to feed the fire of xenophobic attitudes.

On May 22^nd the British electorate, and others across Europe, will have their say for who represents them in the European Union. For right wing groups the world over it will be seen as a test of whether volume and propaganda has swayed the people over debate and solutions.

A political presence

The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) has had to cancel its Freepost service after receiving faeces to their offices. While I disagree with UKIP on almost every topic this was never going to be the way to make a political statement.

We are fortunate in Britain that we are able to have freedom of speech, to hold widely differing views and to argue those views. We live in a democracy where we can choose our elected representatives based on what they stand for, something denied to millions of people around the world. It is this which gives us the ability to participate in such childish pranks but it is also this we gives us a moral duty to not do so.

In our political system if you disagree with someone’s point of view then you are free to debate it with them. Changing minds through discourse, that is surely the basic premise of any free thinking political system. Sadly, however, we as a populace seem to have forgotten how to hold an argument, how to hold a view for that matter. We seem to be only interested in meeting the intellect of the lowest common denominator. We have dumbed down our society so much that we have forgotten the very principles upon which it was founded.

We have forgotten that millions of men and women have fought and died to preserve our right to free speech and freedom of political protest. We have forgotten that our leaders used to be intelligent men, and rightly so. We valued honour and intellect. We may have disagreed with someone’s views but we had the character to respect their right to have them. All of that seems to have been lost somewhere along the way.

Instead we now have celebrities telling us that the system is broken and we should stop voting. We should stop voting? We should sacrifice the right which so many people would still die to just have a glimpse at, which so many already have, as a form of protest. If the system is broken then the way in which we change it is by voting, by choosing better leaders.

Nigel Farage’s greatest selling point is his “voice of the common man” approach. People like him because he makes them feel on the same level. Surely our leaders should be the best and the brightest. They should be men and women of conscience and intellect, they should be brighter than the majority and we should feel that we can respect them.

As it stands at the moment we have very few such politicians in place. This is not the fault of the system though, this is the fault of us the electorate. We voted these people in. We chose them, we gave up on wanting the best.

If you want to prove that UKIP is wrong, something which does not take the best and the brightest by any means, then join in the debate. Show how flawed their ideals are, show why they are wrong, show that you have a better plan, don’t act in a way which would have your peers in primary school look down at you for immaturity.