Steal From the Poor and Give to the Rich

So today was budget day, one of the most important dates in the political calendar. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stood before the House of Commons and detailed the government’s economic policy for the next year. And what a budget it was, but how will the policies announced today effect you? Why should you care about today’s announcements?

Because today George Osborne gave the rich the biggest pat on the back they have had in years. George Osborne himself said that “It unashamedly backs business.” Backing business is not necessarily a bad thing, but the businesses backed are the ones that created the economic crisis and the ones owned by the rich. As I moaned about earlier this week () the Chancellor cut the 50p tax rate on earnings over £150,000 to 45p. He claimed the rate earned “next to nothing”; making only a third of the original 3 billion pounds predicted. Call me stupid, but to me 1 billion pounds is a lot of money. I am sure most people would call 1 billion pounds a lot of money. When the UK has a national debt of over 1 trillion pounds I do not think we should be throwing away 1 billion pounds worth of income. But I explored the real travesty of the cutting of the tax rate in my earlier blog post.

Another pat on the back for the rich was the announcement that corporation tax will fall from 26% to 24% in April, and then to 22% by 2014. This decrease is meant to promote business in the UK, and it may do this, but it also creates a whole in the budget that will have to be filled. And as usual the people to pick up this bill will be those on low to middle incomes. By lowering corporation tax, the coalition is stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. Businesses care about one thing, making money, and the budget today encouraged this view; ignoring the needs of society.

People rely on pensions in order to be able to live once they reach an age at which they can longer work. When someone retires at the retirement age they currently have a larger amount of their pension money not taxed, compared to those who retired early. From April 2013 this will no longer the case. This is where the government have made up for their concessions to the rich. This is how the Conservatives fairer Britain works. They hit the most vulnerable the hardest. The government says this is simply making tax laws simpler and not lose anyone money, yet the National Association of Pension funds says that that between 2013 and the next election in 2015, pensioners will lose 2 billion pounds in age-related tax allowance. The coalition has grabbed money from the weakest in society and used in to plug holes for the rich.

This budget will affect everyone, and not just in the immediate future. At the start of the budget, George Osborne announced that the UK will not enter a technical recession, yet the measures implemented today will make those on a middle and low income feel as if we are in recession. The coalition is punishing the majority of society in order to make the rich that little bit richer. You should care about today’s budget because it is a gross injustice. The government is ignoring the people, and listening to the wallets of their friends. This budget goes against all public opinion and will make your life harder, by making you pay for tax breaks for the rich. The coalition has just created the knife and is asking the public to stab it. Bravo Osborne, bravo.

A Speculative Rant

Next week is budget week, in which George Osborne will take the budget red box to the House of Commons and declare the next years economic policy, and as usual the press are having a field day guessing what Osborne will announce, and what they all seem to think is that the 50p tax rate will be cut. At the moment any earnings over £150,000 have a tax of 50p for every pound. To the average person this has no effect on them, but the aim of the 50p tax rate is to say, you get such a high wage because of society so you can give more back to society. But if Osborne does cut the tax rate will it be a good or bad thing for Britain?

The good old Conservative, capitalist answer will be that cutting the rate will be great for Britain. They will argue that it will allow ‘higher earners’, or as I would call them ‘The Rich’, to have larger disposable incomes. Thus they will be able to spend more money, boosting the economy. They will say that we are in hard economic times, and that even ‘high earners’ feel this, so we must give them some sort of tax break. The Conservatives claim the 50p rate raises little money and thus must be destroyed.

The Conservatives are wrong. When the 50p tax rate was introduced in 2010 by Alistair Darling it was because Britain’s economic situation was dire. In 2012 Britain is still in a dire economic situation. The coalition cuts are hitting the poorest in society the hardest, and the 50p tax rate is the rich paying their share. The only reason the Tories want to cut the rate is because they, and their friends, are the ones it affects. The Coalition is happy to cut services to social groups they are not part of, but when it starts to affect the wealthy, they have been tucked away in a bomb shelter; unaffected by the state of the economy. But what the Coalition is really ignoring is the fact that taxation works. We currently have a huge amount of government debt that has to be paid. High taxation, hand in hand with government cuts and wiser spending, will pay off this debt. The coalition seems to think that massive government cuts will save the debt problem by itself. It won’t. The money raised by the 50p tax rate will help to pay off the debt and put Britain back on track. If Osborne does cut the tax rate, he will be ignoring the plight of Britain’s lower and middle classes.

Next week when the budget is announced, I will watch with baited breath to see if Osborne cuts the 50p tax rate. If he does it will show that the Coalition is an introverted government that only cares about the rich. But only time will tell if all this speculation comes true, so until next Wednesday this is just a political guessing game.

Abandon Ship or Major Rethink?

Yesterday I took part in a model united nations. At the model United Nations we successfully passed a resolution on the situation in the Gaza Strip; something that has long eluded the real United Nations. The fact that in one day we successfully did what the United Nations has failed to do for decades made me consider, has the United Nations failed? The United Nations was created out of war to secure peace and freedom across the earth. The Victors of the Second World War, determined to right the failures of the League of Nations, aimed to create an organisation that would stop any possible conflicts and ensure all humans had the basic human rights. Yet 66 years after the creation of the United Nations, we still live in a world full of conflict and many are still denied their fundamental human rights. So has the UN been a grand dream that has failed?

One of the main reasons the United Nations has achieved little over the past seven decades is its failure to evolve. The five main victors of the Second World War were the U.K, U.S.A, China, the U.S.S.R and France; the five permanent members of the Security Council are the U.K, U.S.A., China, Russia and France. These countries have the power to veto any resolution presented to the Security Council. The role of the Security Council is to ensure international peace and security. The Security Council is made up of these members and 10 other countries elected for two year terms, with no veto power. This means whenever a conflict arises that involves a permanent member, a resolution is hardly ever passed. And that is not the worst part of the current Security Council situation; the biased of countries destroys the legitimacy of the council. The U.S.A always vetoes any resolution that condemns the actions of Israel. The most recent resolution vetoed by the U.S.A demanded the end to Israel building illegal settlements in the West Bank and the Golan heights; 14 countries voted in favour, but the U.S.A. vetoed. China and Russia tend to veto any resolution which condemns the actions of a Government towards it citizens. No resolution has been passed about the situation in Syria, in which thousands of civilians have been killed, because China and Russia vetoed the resolution presented as it was “unbalanced”. Nearly a year after the start of the Syrian uprising no resolution has been passed, allowing the Syrian regime to murder thousands of its civilians. Because it has not evolved and has stuck too much in the past, the Security Council has hindered world peace and allowed thousands, if not millions of innocent people to die and suffer. Five countries can completely overrule all other countries at the United Nations; surely this makes the organisation more ‘The Allies and Company’ than the ‘United Nations’.

The General Assembly is meant to be the main decision making body of the United Nations, consisting of representatives from all 193 member states. However it cannot pass resolutions than ‘condemn’ the actions of any state, only the Security Council has this power. This effectively castrates the General Assembly. Because it lacks this clout the General Assembly can seem to descend into a talking shop; lots of talk but little action. The General Assembly presents the rare opportunity for countries across the globe to come together and talk, in order to seek the higher goal. Yet in reality any resolution it does pass, which is hard in itself as you need a two-thirds majority, is pale in comparison to any resolution passed by the Security Council. Only a major rethink of how the Security Council works could give the General Assembly the power it deserves.

But just because the United Nations has not had a great track record, does not mean we should give up on it. In a thousand years the human race will look back to 1945 and say, these were the first steps to uniting humanity. The United Nations can be an incredible tool for good, creating a stable and safe world. The organisation is in desperate need of reform, but this does not mean abandoning it. In another 66 years I believe the United Nations will be a radically different organisation, but still with the same fundamental goals. The needs of humanity never change and the United Nations recognises this and strives to fulfil these needs. Although it often falls short, if we never dream we never achieve.

Let No Man Put Asunder

On Sunday Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the most senior Roman Catholic Cleric in Britain, called Gay Marriage “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”. With the coalition government planning to introduce gay marriage by the next general election, it is not surprising that the Catholic Church are in battle stations; The Catholic Church loves a good fight. But the words of Cardinal O’Brien really hit me. How can allowing people to marry be against other peoples human rights? Surely not allowing people to marry is denying people human rights?

Now comes the point at which I announce my bias. I am bisexual. One day I believe I will settle down with one partner and they may be male or female. When this day comes I would like to be able to marry them. But in 15 years time when the point comes to settle down, I may find I may not be able to marry because a few straight people think I do not have the right. I have the right to do what I want as long as nobody is hurt, and who do you hurt by marrying someone of the same gender? The Catholic Church, and other Christians, argue that God defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. I, however, am an atheist, so do not believe in God. Why should I be restricted by the beliefs of one religion? Marriage was around long before Christianity, defeating the argument that these Christians have. Marriage predates recorded history and each culture has its own marriage tradition. Although the Christian view of marriage has been the basis of current western marriage traditions, we do not live in a society of one religion. Our society accepts all beliefs and cultures, so why should one religion be able to overrule all other beliefs?

One of the most common arguments against same-sex marriage is that it would ruin the sanctity of marriage. I personally believe that heterosexuals have done a good enough job of fucking up marriage themselves. You can commit adultery, get divorced, or not love your partner but none of this will ruin the sanctity of marriage, yet if loving same-sex couples are allowed to get married all hell will break loose. These people seem to fear that same-sex couples are just waiting with their hammers to break down marriage and jump all over its burning remains. If anything same-sex marriage will ensure the sanctity of marriage. It will show that at the heart of marriage is love and unity, and that no matter what your sexuality, if you love someone you are united with them. Marriage is about uniting people but a section of society seems determined to use it as a wedge to divide society. In the 21^st Century the absence of same-sex marriage is a horrific abuse of human rights. Yet in Britain the coalition has made clear its aim to introduce same-sex marriage by the next election; The Church can no longer stop progress. At risk of sounding cheesy, prejudice cannot stand in the way of love.

Our Worst Enemy and Our Best Friend

The House of Lords is an undemocratic and archaic institution. The 788 members of the house were never voted in by any member of the public. They are either in there because one of their descendants helped beat up some peasants a few hundred years ago, or because a Prime Minister has decided to put them in there. How in the 21^st Century is this acceptable? How in a ‘democratic’ country can we have a completely unelected upper house that has the power to override the decisions of the elected lower house? The House of Lords is Britain’s stumbling block, yet in rare cases it is sometimes the only voice of the people in government.

The coalition government is currently trying to pass the ‘Health and Social Care Bill’ through the House of Lords. This bill would completely wreck the NHS; making the NHS easier to privatise and putting more pressure on GP’s. This bill would effectively ruin the NHS, allowing the coalition to privatise our health service. Yet a faction in the House of Lords is determined to stop the bill; the same bill The House of Commons has already passed. A group of Liberal Democrat Lords and crossbenchers have ignored the government because they know they are wrong. They understand the NHS is at the heart of British society and refuse to start its demise. In this case the House of Lords has served its function; to stop the lower house when it is wrong. The House of Commons has ignored the will of the people, and in this case, the Lords are stepping in to stop this. Hopefully the Lords will stop the bill, but realistically once a bill has passed the Commons it tends to pass through the Lords.But they will not back down. This group is determined to stop the NHS from being destroyed by the coalition.

But why are the Lords suddenly caring about what the public say, when they themselves do not have to answer to the public. Maybe the Lords is aware of its own demise. How much longer can an undemocratic house last for? The public demand reform of the political system, meaning sooner or later a government will be forced to reform the Lords. What better way to go out that with one last swan song; a valiant battle for democracy and the people. However, no matter how valiantly they fight, the Lords is still an institution that must be destroyed. A Britain with an elected upper house would be fairer and more democratic. Other countries with democratic houses show that, because both houses have to face the judgement of the public, they both try to represent the people. They keep each other in check and when one house fails to represent the people, the other steps in to stop them. The House of Lords occasionally protects the people, but an elected upper house would always have this at their heart.

The United Countries

With the issue of Scottish Independence a permanent fixture in the news at the moment, maybe it is time for a radical rethink of the way our country is structured. Our current system of a centralised executive and legislative, based entirely in one capital city is getting a bit out dated. Devolution went some way to equalising power, but this has created new absurdities. Scottish, Welsh and Irish MP’s can vote to change issues that only effect England, yet English MP’s cannot do the same, due to these powers being devolved to local legislatures. The system needs to be changed, to appease nationalist groups and to ensure a balance of power and I think the best way forward is a more federal system.

Instead of a United Kingdom we should become the United Countries of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. In the current system there is no clear recognition that the kingdom is created from four separate systems; our lack of one written constitution means that this issue is very complicated. A better system would be a clear recognition of the four separate countries and creating local parliaments for each country. These parliaments could control local issues, such as culture, local taxation, tourism, housing, education and transport. A national parliament, elected like the House of Commons, could then control national issues, such as defence, foreign relations, and economic policy and make sure that issues such as transport and education were unified across the parliament, without interfering with the ways that the local governments run these areas. An upper house, similar to the House of Lords but actually democratically elected, could make sure that the national parliament never infringed on the rights of the local government and making sure policy it passed was fair and just. They could also make sure that the local parliaments never overstepped the mark and ensure they did not start making unfair policy. This system would ensure that power was never too concentrated in one place but equally spread across the country.

A new federal system would ensure a rebirth of British politics. It would usher in a new era of responsibility and accountability. A new era of transparent and fair politics. It would show nationalist groups that, yes, you are part of a country but that our four countries work better together, working together to bring about a fairer society. But at the moment this is a far off vision, but I believe this is the way forward for our country; the only way to achieve a better society for all.

Liberal With The Truth

For me the Liberal Democrats summarise everything that is wrong with UK politics. They seem to have no interest in honesty and integrity and only care about how to gain, and retain, power. From their creation as a merger of the Liberal party and the Social Democrats, the party seems to have been determined to gain as much power as the Liberals had in the early 20^th Century. But before this descends into me posting a personal vendetta on the internet let me show a few reasons of why I have such a dislike for the Liberal Democrats.

Let’s start with the elephant in the room, Student Tuition Fee’s.  For many years the Liberal Democrats went around the country, visiting students and promising to vote against any increase in student tuition fees. They even signed pledges and allowed photographs to be taken with them holding their pledges to vote against any increase in tuition fees. Then came the 2010 general election and the Liberal Democrats formed that beautiful coalition that is currently in government. Out the window went the pledges and in their place were pledges to triple tuition fees. Some people went ‘hang on, didn’t I see a picture of Nick Clegg with a pledge never to increase tuition fees’ but good old Nick reminded the electorate that the coalition was about compromise, with the Conservatives being able to do what they wanted to and the Liberal Democrats getting useless, but impressive sound titles like ‘Deputy Prime minister’. Student Tuition Fees was, and still is, the prime example of how the Liberal Democrats are willing to go back on promises in order to obtain power. Maybe, shock horror, they never intended to vote against an increase in tuition fees but merely said so to win student votes.

Now, let’s move on to the coalition itself. This coalition based on compromise and working together seems to actually be a coalition of Conservatives and that other party that they walk over. The only thing the Liberal Democrats seem to have achieved is their long desired AV referendum, which went down like a lead balloon. But what else have the Liberal Democrats achieved? In nearly two years have they made a difference in the coalition? I expected the Liberal Democrats to be the moral compass of the coalition. I expected them to stand up to their Conservative partners, telling them when they were cutting too deep or hitting the working and middle classes too hard. Instead they put on their doormat outfits and let the Conservatives walk all over them.  Not only that but they have become the Conservatives whipping boys. They take all of the blame for the coalition, hence why only around 8% of the population say they will vote for them in the next election. They create none of the policy yet take all of the blame, all because they enjoy the position of power they currently have.

The Liberal Democrats are either stupidly naive or they know that they will not be voted back into a position of power in the next generation. The current generation does not trust them, and my generation blames them for the £45,000 worth of debt they will be in after university. So my dislike of the Liberal Democrats stems from the fact that they have no interest in political policy but only in political power. They have sacrificed their integrity to gain five years of power, but they will suffer the worst fifty years in the history of any British political party as a repercussion. Well done Liberal Democrats, you really have shot yourselves in the foot.