Now this is not the end.

In 20 years time we will look back on this day as the day in which the coalition started to break down.  When the deputy prime minister stands in front of a group of journalists and says that the Conservatives “broke the coalition contract” and that they can’t “pick and chose” what they want from the collation agreement, the government starts down a road which will ultimately lead to its destruction. 

About fucking time. Today is a day for people all across the political spectrum to celebrate. No one voted for the coalition and frankly, no one likes it. For Conservatives it’s not right wing enough and doesn’t go far enough in budget cuts and public sector saving. For Liberal Democrats it’s too right wing and at points goes too far in its budget cuts. And for Labour supporters, it’s a government of liars and crooks. In the past two years I have never met anyone who has said “Oh yeah, I like the coalition, they are doing a great job”, and this is why the coalition must dissolve, and will dissolve before 2015. You cannot create a government that lacks public support, create policies that lack public support and then have the leader of one of the coalition parties saying that the coalition agreement was “broke” and expect the government to continue for another three years.

So let us remember this day as the start of the end. The day on one of the most unpopular UK governments since the great reform act , started to crumble. Today is a day in which we are reminded that politicians will only do things they do not agree with for so long without getting some sort of reward. The day is in sight in which the marriage between Cameron and Clegg will be annulled.

The C Word

When you say communism to someone in the west they automatically class you in one of two groups. You are either a Stalinist, craving for an evil dictatorship to take power, or you are mad. I have met more than a few people who think I am crazy believing in communism and as soon as communism is raised in any conversation I am in, someone instinctively goes “Oh, don’t get Dan started on communism”. But this distrust of communism is based on a preconception in western civilization that communism is the idea of power hungry lunatics, who hate fun and love uniformity, and that Capitalism gives you what you want when you want it. But both of these statements are wrong, and the west’s distrust of communism does not stem from a love of capitalism. The west alienates communism because it loves consumerism.

After the Second World War, people all over the globe dreamt of a new world, without the fog of war. In the west this world would come in the form of strengthening capitalist views; using the cold war the USA created an alliance of countries the relied on ever increasing free market policies. As this evolution happened people got used to being able to buy anything they wanted, whenever they wanted it. This type of consumerism works perfectly when the economy is strong and the market is growing. But capitalism relies on a ‘free market’ that is allowed to do what it wants. So as the market grows, the market then falls. One only has to look through history to see periods of economic growth, followed by periods of recessions and depression. And this is where my argument that the west loves consumerism and not capitalism stems from. If the west loved capitalism, when the market started crashing, the citizens of the west would start investing their money in banks and infrastructure, spending less money on themselves and start putting more money into businesses. 

But they don’t. Even when the economy is shrinking the populace of the west still want to buy things. In fact our most recent economic crisis was partly caused by banks selling high risk loans so people could buy things. People’s appetite for a new product is never quenched. Even though the world economy has been in turmoil since 2008, for the past four years people in the west have spent billions on computers, gadgets, clothes and other non-essential items that make living ‘that little bit easier’. Consumerism is like a rolling snow ball: as people want to buy more and more expensive things they have to get larger and larger loans. This is worst in times of economic crisis as it deepens the crisis by creating vast amounts of debt. If people loved capitalism they wouldn’t take out loans in times of crisis. Because the past two generations have been born into times when no one has starved, no one has had to tighten the purse strings because of war or famine, times when spending money has been praised and encouraged and not times when people are told to save and spend wisely, the modern western population thinks that spending money all the time is a basic human right and necessary to survive. This is why the west shuns communism; they fear not being able to spend money they don’t have on things they don’t need. They also fear not being able to show off the things they bought with money they don’t have to people who didn’t buy said thing. Consumerism is built on lies and power.

The decadence of consumerism is engrained in western society; communism is seen as the opposite of this decadence. The powers at be like to believe the populace love the capitalist system, but they love the freedom of consumerism. I believe that communism offers more freedom; freedom to live in a society where your opinion matters, a society where each person has an equal amount of power, a society where man is freed to achieve higher goals than simple collection of capital. Once the west shrugs its reliance of consumerism, communism will be waiting.

I am become Gove, destroyer of Education

Just when everyone thought Michael Gove couldn’t make anymore stupid and thoughtless remarks a document was leaked last night that shows he is planning to scrap GCSE’s, introduced by the Thatcher government in 1986, and bring back the old O-Level system. The system would work by having O-Levels for those subjects Mr Gove has decided are the most important: Maths, Chemistry, Biology, Physics, English, Geography and History. For ‘less academic’ students there will be Certificates of Secondary Education, or CSE’s. Thus the exam system of the old Grammar School and Secondary Modern system will be reinstated if Mr Gove has his way.

But that system doesn’t work. Thatcher’s Conservative Government understood that people were angry that at the age of 14 their Children were grouped into either an academic elite or those who were ‘less academic’ and thus condemned to sit exams that were seen as inferior. In the GCSE system all students sit the same exam. Yes students get different grades but they are all given the same opportunity to succeed and try to achieve the top grades. The O-Level system condemns children at 14 and makes the choice for them of where their life will go. Mr Gove does not have the right nor the power to choose the fate of a generation of children.

Under the planned system those subjects not offered at O-Level would still be offered at GCSE. This would essentially mean all subjects Michael Gove does not see as important would be downgraded to a lesser qualification. Michael Gove would be condemning all arts based subjects and all students whose ability lies outside of the main academic subjects. Students who had qualifications in Art, Music, Drama and Economics would be seen as a second class student compared to a student who had studied Geography and Biology. How is this fair? Western Civilization is built upon the blending of all areas of knowledge; Economics relies on Maths, Drama can comment on History, Political ideas can be spread through knowledge of English. If the government starts deciding which areas of academia are important and which aren’t then the government will have the power to cripple western civilization, destroying in a few years the product of thousands of years.

Thatcher introduced the GCSE system because people said the O-Level system was unfair and failing students, widening the social divide and the wealth gap. Maybe the GCSE system does need rethinking. Personally, as someone who completed their GCSE’s last year, I find the fact that there are so many Exam Boards confusing and have come to believe that the education of students is being turned into a business venture for Exam Boards. But that doesn’t mean GCSE’s should be scrapped. Maybe we do need to look into the GCSE system and have an inquiry into how they could be improved, but that doesn’t mean we should scrap them and go back to a system that was seen as outdated half a century ago. When your computer starts to work a little slower, you don’t say “Oh well time to go back to my abacus”. The real intentions of Mr Gove are to return education to the system he grew up in. But Michael Gove went to a private school; he lived in a world of money and power, whilst around the country children just as old as him were being condemned as ‘less academic’. Rethinking the system does not mean talking a jump back into the past.

This recent scandal has just reinforced why Michael Gove is perhaps the worst education secretary the UK has ever seen. Margaret Thatcher was hated in the 1970’s as she was “Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher”, the education secretary who stopped over sevens from receiving free milk. If Michael Gove gets his way he will be remembered as the education secretary who damned a generation of children and destroyed their futures.

Why So Cosy?

At the moment the Dalai Lama is travelling around the UK on a tour of the country, stopping to give speeches on how the youth today have the power to change their world. Naturally this has angered China, not for the first time this year. In May China got in a huff because David Cameron met with the Dalai Lama in London. China stopped meetings between Chinese Ministers and their UK counterparts and said they would not be restored until the UK "stops supporting anti-Chinese forces”.

For those not in the know here is a quick history lesson. The current Dalai Lama is the 14^th manifestation of the bodhisattva of compassion and the leading figure of Tibetan Buddhism. In 1950 after the end of the Chinese Civil War which saw Mao Zedong declare the “communist” People’s Republic of China, the Chinese army invaded Tibet. The Dalai Lama fled in 1959 and since then has been the face of the Tibetan independence movement.  

For the Chinese government the Dalai Lama is the enemy. He wants Tibet to be freed from its invaders; he has condemned the Chinese regime saying it is in no way Marxist and brought to the attention of the entire world the culture of torture and abuse run by the Chinese government not just in Tibet but in the rest of China. To many around the world the Dalai Lama is a hero, a champion of pacifism and unity in mankind and someone who stands up to oppression. But in recent decades foreign governments have grown wary of him. Talking to the Dalai Lama always annoys China and many governments, including the UK government, have grown rather cosy with  China since its implantation of a more market based economy. They weigh money as more important that what is morally right. Cash comes before human life in their barometer if what is right.

But this is wrong.  How can we happily stand by a regime which has murdered millions, forced women to have abortions, massacred students in the streets when they peacefully protest, destroyed people’s homes when they are still in them, censored the media and the internet and supported regimes around the world that ignore human rights. How can we ever befriend such a country? The western world was happy to condemn the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact friends but because they can make a few bucks in China, they are praised.

I am not advocating a second Cold War, but I am advocating a system of foreign relations where human rights and human life is seen as sacred and of paramount importance, not the will of the markets. For instance at the moment China is blocking any resolution from the UN Security Council that would condemn the Syrian regime as they see the opposition movement as the ones in the wrong; China wants to condemn the massacred not the murderers. And the western response to this, hold a few press conferences where you say “Oh yeah we don’t agree with China and hopefully they will change their mind”. If it was me, or any right minded human being, I would be battering down their door demanding why they are ignoring human rights, I would be holding press conferences where I would be saying that this is typical of a regime that relies on terror and fear to cling on to power.

In the past few decades the UK has grown to close to China. How can we champion democracy and human rights when one of our biggest trading partners is a regime that is estimated to have caused the death of up to 55 million of its citizens? The UK needs to annoy China; it needs to talk to the Dalai Lama. In the 21^st Century we need to stay away from the People’s Republic and talk around the world of how we must support those repressed by the regime and demand that if China wants to enter the world community its needs to reform and start acting like a 21^st century country, where human rights and not optional extras and democracy and active political discussion is encouraged not beaten out of people. We cannot stand by murderous dictators, we must condemn them.

Self-Evident Truths

The Jubilee weekend is over, the boats are back in dock, the carriage is back in storage and the royal family have gone back home. Over the weekend millions around the country and commonwealth watched the Queen as she was paraded round to celebrate 60 years on the throne and many proudly sang the national anthem.  People proudly sang ‘God Save the Queen’, beaming with pride. Maybe they missed the crucial lyric. Maybe they chose to ignore the plea that the monarch “Long may reign over us”. I try and excuse these people because I cannot imagine how millions of people can ask to be enslaved and praise their so called ruler. The Jubilee was not a time for celebration, but a time for mourning.

In 1776 Thomas Jefferson proudly wrote that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”. These immortal words are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, a document which removed from the citizens of the American colonies the shackles of the British monarchy. These words were written 236 years ago, so why over two centuries later does the United Kingdom still have a head of state based on a hereditary monarchy. Elizabeth Windsor is my equal, not my superior. I am no one’s slave; she is not my ruler.  Why am I meant to accept the authority of one 86 year old woman to rule over me, and to accept that after she dies her son will rule me and his son and that all my descendants will always be ruled by their descendants? My descendants could be great writers, academics, scientists and politicians. They could win Nobel prizes or Oscars; travel to space or discover the cure for cancer. Yet I am meant to praise the fact that no matter what greatness they achieve they will the slaves of the Windsor’s and have to rejoice in their forced servitude. I will not. I am an equal to all human beings and I should be treated as such, not patronised as a weaker mortal who should bask in the glory of a superior monarch. The monarchy enforces an ancient belief that has no place in modern society.

Mrs Windsor did not become head of state because she is a woman of great wisdom, knowledge or ability to govern. She became head of state because in 1714 Georg Ludwig, a German Duke and Elector in the Holy Roman Empire, travelled to Britain to claim the throne after the death of Queen Anne.  My great great grandfather was a fisherman in Scotland, does this make me a great fisherman? My grandfather was a navigator in the RAF during the Berlin Airlift, does the mean I could successfully navigate a plane to Berlin?  If you look at other heads of state they are there because they were great lawyers, politicians and academics, not because centuries ago an ancestor used Machiavellian politics to gain power. No one is made superior because of the acts of an ancestor, yet this is the basis of the monarchy. 

The monarchy is a archaic institution, a last remnant of the ancien regime and the concert of Europe. But those days are past. The people of Europe cried out for democracy and after great struggles achieved it, yet we are left with a hereditary head of state.  The right to rule based on your family suffocates democracy and roots the British political system in the Dark Ages.

The silver Jubilee of Elizabeth Windsor highlights the need for an elected head of state in the United Kingdom. We should not rejoice at having someone to “reign over us” but demand equality, fight for freedom and cry out for democracy. It is time for the people of this sceptred isle to have the unalienable right to chose an equal to be head of state; a representative of the people not a ruler. I long for the day the monarchy will fall and Britain will finally emerge into a full democracy.

The Labour Zeitgeist

I am ecstatic about the local election results. The people have spoken and they have sent the message that the coalition isn’t working. The Liberal Democrats now have their lowest number of local councillors ever and the Conservatives have lost over 400. The government has now been forced to pay attention to the fact that they feel they are being ignored and abandoned. But better yet, people have put their faith back into Labour. Finally Labour and Ed Miliband have effectively made their case and stated their aims, and been justly rewarded. 823 new councillors and 32 new councils are numbers that cannot be ignored. Labour is back on track and back to the party that listens to and helps those who are in the worst situations.

But we shouldn’t get complacent. Neil Kinnock led the Labour party to great successes at local elections but in 1992, the Labour Party (whom many expected would win an easy victory) lost the election, ensuring another five years of Conservative government. Labour still has a long way to go before it ensures it wins the next general election. What Labour needs to do is catch the zeitgeist of these local elections and finally issue a clear manifesto of what it will do on a local level and what it wants to do on a national level, and how it aims to use its position as the Opposition to protect the public from the coalition’s love of cuts. By stating its objectives and goals Labour would show it is organised but most importantly that it has changed. It would show that the days of New Labour, that the infighting between Blarites and Brownites are things of the past and that Labour has risen from the ashes, stronger and fairer.

Now is the time to rally round Labour. Now is the time for a party that puts people before business. Now is the time for fairer and just politics. Labour has started the up hill struggle to election victory. By staying on track and shouting its aims from the rooftops, Labour can ensure that at the next general election the map will be flooded with red.

Learn to Walk Before You Run

On Monday 9th April was one of those days where you start to wonder if stock traders and bankers live under rocks. Yesterday stock markets around the world fell as traders reacted to fears about Greece's government being voted out, Spain having to pay ridiculous borrowing costs and Italian and Spanish bonds not doing particularly well. The traders came back from their Easter holidays, remembered the Eurozone was in danger and panicked; the FTSE 100 fell by more than 2%, the DAX by more than 2.5% and the Dow Jones continued to fall for the fifth day. But how did they only just remember? How for the last few months have the markets not reacted to the Eurozone crisis? Yesterday was a prime example of the problem with modern economies; we have an unstable global economy with countries that do not understand we have a global economy and rely too heavily on each other.

The Eurozone debt crisis has been lingering around since 2009 but only in the last year has it really reared its ugly head. The issue was created in a time when everything was looking economically good and letting in weaker economies into a united economic union seemed a good idea. But in Capitalism, what goes up must come down. So when in 2008 everything went down, the Eurozone went with it. But if this crisis has been lurking since 2009, why has it not be solved already? Because the large economies in the Eurozone, Germany and France, have no interest in weakening their economies in order to save other countries. This selfishness is a vital part of Capitalism but can have no place in an economic and monetary union. A union implies helping one another and putting each other on an equal level; the Eurozone runs in a way that elevates Germany and France at the cost of every other country. If Germany suddenly had a debt problem they would demand that all other Eurozone countries help them, but when Greece asked for help the answer was to help them at the cost of completely destroying their economy. The Eurozone is not aware of how to exist with each other as unified economies and are a sign that globalisation and the free market system are not working.

So what is the answer? Surely the simple and obvious answer is self reliance. Local economies need to learn how to rely on themselves. The problem with globalisation is that it creates countries that rely on each completely, thus if one country goes under so do many others. In a self reliant system if Germany went under, it wouldn't drag France, Greece, Spain, Italy, Austria and many others down with it. In fact with self reliance, there would be no threat of going under. If exports were down one year, it wouldn't be a problem as they would not be a major are of income.

But how would this system of self reliance work? If services charged at running costs, if taxes were fair and made the richer in society pay their fair share, if the public sector was strengthened, if goods were sold at cost price then an economy could sustain itself. Instead of putting money in foreign banks, money should be put into the central bank. Businesses should be encouraged to keep work and jobs in the country, instead of out sourcing. Services, such as public transport, power and water should be nationalised. This ensures users are not crippled by prices, meaning they have more money to put into the economy.

The way our current economic system is set up puts too much reliance on an unstable global economy. This cannot and will not last forever. Surely the time for change is now.

The Coalition is Watching You

On April 1^st the Home Office thought it was the perfect time to announce plans to pass legislation that will force internet firms to give real time information on the communications of its customers to the GCHQ (UK Government Communication Headquarters). This means that the GCHQ would know who you have called, text, emailed and what websites you have visited. Although they would not know the contents of the compunctions, being able to know who is talking to who is a powerful tool. This Orwellian scheme at first seemed like some stupid and elaborate April fools, but as time went on it became clear the coalition is serious about creating a piece of legislation that will destroy a significant proportion of a UK citizens civil liberties.

At the moment if you want to know who someone has been texting/emailing/calling or what websites they have been visiting you need a warrant. This ensures that the public’s basic rights are not infringed in the name of security and also stops law enforcement from arresting people based just on the fact that ‘they called someone who’s a bit dodgy’. To obtain a warrant you need clear evidence that the person is probably guilty of a crime and that the evidence gathered with the warrant will help convict the person for this particular crime. This system works. This system ensures safety of the public from threats and also protects them from a ‘Big Brother’ society. Why destroy a system that works? The system has been this way for over 100 years and although longevity is not an argument to never change, in those 100+ years the system has become a benchmark of freedom and liberty in western civilization.

The Home Office has said that the proposed system would ensure the safety of the public and society. How? Knowing that Man X, known terrorist, has been emailing Man Y does not mean Man Y. This new system would just lengthen the list of people suspected of being terrorists without actually stopping terrorists. The proposal also seems to overestimate the terrorist threat in the UK. This is a Cold War response to a 21^st Century problem; creating a climate of fear without solving the issue. It does not take an anti-terrorism expert to work out that if you heighten surveillance of one area of communications, terrorists and criminals will just find another way of communication. An ineffective fear mongering system is what is being proposed.

The issue of surveillance is one that transcends political views; left or right, we can all agree that if the Home Office gets it way, our civil liberties will have started to have been destroyed. It’s a slippery slope from surveillance for security to ‘Big Brother is Watching You’, that is why we must draw the line here. We must stand up and say ‘No’. We must untie across party lines and say ‘Some things are not up for debate, and one of them is our Civil Liberties’.