Open for Requests

Today's post is a short request to readers. My next few blog posts will be interview style summary posts about many of Hellfire Corner's Liberal Democrat Prospective Parliamentary Candidates. I'll be going from the Shepway Peninsula, up the coast through Dover and both Thanet constituencies. I may even stretch to Canterbury, watch this space.

In the meantime, I want any reader of my blog, or any Twitter follower/ Facebook friend to suggest future topics for my blog posts. To give me your suggestions simply post to my Facebook wall or comment under the link to this blog post or indeed tweet me @AstonMannerings...

I look forward to some great suggestions.

Afghanistan: Mission Accomplished?

Due to other commitments recently, including various by-elections and work commitments, I have had less time to consider blog posts. This topic, however, is one I wanted to write about as soon as I heard it on the news, my primary political interests being in Foreign Affairs. If there is one country that has grabbed newspaper headlines for 200 years regarding foreign policy then it is Afghanistan, the ultimate "angry-cats-in-a-sack" country, that western nations have been getting themselves stuck in for many years. British Forces are now in the process of withdrawing from Afghanistan, having been there for 13 years, which now makes everyone ask; "Did we achieve what we went there for?" Its time for some achievement assessment.

Multi-national forces, but predominantly American and British forces, went into Afghanistan in 2001 in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre Twin Towers in New York. The west was set on a monolithic hunt for the terrorist group Al Qaida, who had perpetrated the attack, and its leader Osama Bin Laden. What we must, however, realise, is that taking out those who had harmed us was not the sole purpose of the excursion into Afghanistan; it may have begun as the primary catalyst for invading Afghanistan, but after some time of boots on the ground, it became apparent that our raison d'etre in in Afghanistan was based more around stabilisation of a region that was controlled by anti-western religious extremists, the Taliban. The best evidence of this is 2011, when US Special Forces made a brief incursion into western Pakistan and assassinated Osama Bin Laden. If our purpose in Afghanistan was to exact justice on Al Qaida and its leadership then 2011 should have marked a point of immediate exit. It did not, and only now in 2014 are we seeing British troops return home.

As stated, our presence in Afghanistan became more about stabilisation and helping facilitate the existence of fair democracy in a country that had been ruled by extremists that did not provide equal rights for women in Afghanistan and murdered any who opposed them. The very nature of the Taliban and the way they operate make them a tough enemy to combat, hence the long, drawn-out, lethargy of 13 years of sending men and women in uniform to fight an elusive foe.
What this now requires is a question to be asked: "Is stability finally entrenched in that country?" We can only presume, that with a full withdrawal by the end of the year announced by the Prime Minister, that it is "Mission Accomplished" in terms of a stable nation of Afghanistan.

This accomplishment will, however, be measured only by time itself. Many people predict a Taliban resurgence once NATO fully withdraws from the area and if this turns out to be true, we can only hope that the Afghan defence forces are up to the task of defending their newfound democracy. I think this test may be like selling a product (albeit one that has gone through a long R & D stage). If an unaided Afghanistan can withstand Taliban pressures in this new proving/ prototype stage, even if for a first few years, then I suspect it will endure for many years, or at least as long as it can.

"Talkin' 'bout my generation!"

Once again, I apologise for not having blogged in a while, I have recently undertaken work experience that left me very little time to draft/ compose a blog post. In the intervening period, however, the Scottish Referendum took place and the Scottish people voted to remain within the Union; Thank You Scotland! It is from the referendum that I wish to draw the topic of this, my next blog post. Many of the Scots that voted on 18th September were 16 and 17 years old, younger than the legal voting age in the UK for General, European and Local elections. This tosses some interesting questions into the political cauldron regarding extending the franchise to younger people, a subject that has been on Labour's backburners in recent years and a pet fancy of the Lib Dems for many years, and it has now truly entered the political vogue after the Scottish experiment.

This gladdens me. I have long been confused as to why we do not extend this relatively basic right to 16 and 17 year olds when we trust the latter to drive safely and the former is trusted by society to make comprehensive decisions about marriage and having children, despite still, legally, being children themselves. It is socio-culturally bizarre that we think, as a country, that someone can decide to start a family but they cannot be trusted to consciously vote for whoever best serves their interests and potentially those of their family too! At a time when people complain that politics is not engaging and doesn't emulate society for real, we should be doing our best to encourage more people to consider their political standings and involve themselves in the democratic process, something which the Scottish Referendum was exemplary of.

Turnout in the aforementioned referendum was a staggering 85%! Such a rate has never even been seen in a General Election since the Second World War. This turnout rate was an excellent reflection on the interest of Scots in the referendum and the level to which all strata of voters had been engaged by both the Yes campaign and the Better Together campaign. This, of course, includes the 16 and 17 year olds, who all saw a great opportunity to influence their futures by deciding how their country should be run. This brings me to the reason that best supports why younger people should be given voting rights. By very definition of their age group, younger people have greater vested interests in which government runs the country as they have more of a future to be affected by long term political decisions. Older generations, if they feel benevolent at election time, may vote based on what sort of society THEY THINK their children/ grandchildren want to inherit, Why not, therefore, leave that decision to younger people themselves, who could vote for what sort of society they wanted and what sort of society they want to set up for their children.

Generally speaking this is fairly sound as a concept, but there is one issue I would be concerned about, which is how informed the new young voters would be. Strictly speaking this is a problem for ALL voters, not just potential future young voters; are voters reliable enough to make a sound choice at the ballot box when the majority's main sources of information are purely: personal/ family convictions, parties' literature/ broadcasts and the popular press? Don't misjudge me, I think it is important, in some cases, to vote with your heart as well as your head, but voting purely on an emotive basis, depending on which party can sway your feelings best, is no foundation for a sound democracy. The basic element of the problem is that politics isn't easily understood by all; it has its intricacies. We need to provide our nation with an inherent understanding of political schools of thought and how the democratic process in Britain works. Had this been the case in 2011, more people may have been inclined to vote for AV as an electoral system. Should we be including "Government and Politics" as a statutory  subject at GCSE for school children? I think so, as it would allow most 16 year olds and above to make a reasonably well conceived choice at the ballot box by the time they finished their mandatory education: to quote Lyndon B. Johnson, 'We must open the doors of opportunity, but we must also equip our people to walk through those doors.'

To conclude I think to reject entirely the concept of enfranchising 16 and 17 year olds is nonsensical and potentially dangerous to any party that refuses to adopt this seemingly popular stance. Britain is long overdue (by over 80 years) an extension of voting rights, especially to a group that is already entrusted with other, equally important personal choices. I would also hope that such a move would encourage more people to engage in the democratic process and thus knock turnout rates back up to what they used to be, constantly in the 70-80% margins, if not higher! This is, however, something that would need to be done properly, and also used as an important vehicle for looking at how we engage people with politics in Britain and what can be done to further that engagement. Hopefully this should flow naturally through Westminster and not require extensive external effort like the fight for women's votes did a century ago.

International Amnesia over Ukraine

Foreign policy is one of my foremost political interests, and one of the dominating issues in that field is currently the Ukraine-Russia crisis. Not only has the EU decidedly staked themselves in the Ukrainian camp and pledged many economic sanctions against the Russian Federation, but NATO has stepped up its military commitments. The British headlines have focused on Mr Cameron's pledge for Britain to have a leading role, with 1,000 British troops designated for a high-readiness spearhead force should Russia up its military efforts. Ultimately, this is a show of stiff solidarity by the western world as an affront to Vladimir Putin, showing that Britain, America et al. will provide more than words in the aid of Ukrainian sovereignty. John Foster Dulles is smiling down upon NATO as this amounts to something much akin to his "United Action" that he sought during the 1950s for dealing with crises in Southeast Asia. This is, however, precisely the problem; this entire system of posturing smacks of the Twentieth Century, not the supposedly more modern Twenty-First Century that we live in now!

The issue is NATO, the UN, the EU and what their member states do with them. While I would never denigrate what these institutions do to maintain peace and reduce any likelihood of a Third World War, there is a memory lapse in the thinking of the western world and a failure in understanding what constitutes a positive response to international crises. It seems that everyone is concerned with the example of 1938; allowing Hitler the operating room he wanted regarding the Czech Sudetenland and acquiescing to the expansion of the Third Reich. This is because NATO, the United Nations and the European Union were all born of the post-World War Two era that saw a ravaged Europe in dire need of rebuilding and establishment of stabilisation with fears of her then neighbour, the Soviet Union. NATO et al. were formulated, in short, to make sure 1938 would never happen again lest thresholds be crossed and conflicts escalate uncontrollably.
Ironically, no one seems to remember the crisis that 1938 was born of, despite this year being its centenary.

Before the outbreak of the First World War, Europe had slowly built itself up for a fight, with two distinct groups forming into opposing camps. The difference is, 1914's bolt-action rifles, heavy artillery and modern Dreadnought battleships are today's UAV drones, Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs) and state-of-the art Aircraft Carriers. Thankfully, the most important difference today is that we know how destructive modern war can be, even if some politicians forget this every now and then!

In this year of all years we should be REMEMBERING that base posturing is not the answer to international crises. We should be doing more of what the EU has been doing which is exercising its economic clout. Some people may not necessarily believe it at first, but losing a few Pounds/ Euros/ Dollars is better than losing your friends and family on yet more European Battlefields. Let monetary mechanics cause Mr Putin his problems, and perhaps his divided nation will become more divided and oust him from power. Presenting Russia with a large threat only stiffens the sinews and summons up the courage of the Russian Bear. Vladimir Putin may be many awful things as a leader, but he is staunchly patriotic, something that resonates well in Russia and always has done. Many argue that the Falklands War saved Mrs Thatcher from electoral defeat in 1983; there is similarity to be seen here. Handing Putin his patriotic credentials on a platter will only ever serve his purposes.

What is needed is for everyone to have a little historical memory, and remember that international crises stretch back further than 1930s Germany, and that many things have been tried before to awful result. More importantly, in the Twenty-First Century we have evolved a peaceful way of dealing with big problems like this. Spilling blood may solve a problem, but it invariably creates a bigger problem after the event.

Immigration, 21st Century Style

First of all, I wish to apologise for not blogging in over a month. I have been heavily involved with a council by-election in Folkestone which has taken up a lot of my focus and effort. The experience was enjoyable and I learned a lot about local politics and the mechanical side of elections from a whole bunch of knowledgeable people, not least of all from our local agent, Darren Briddock; thank you the Shepway Team, I look forward to the next by-election.

It is therefore, with great vim and vigour, I return here to tackle the Goliath of all political subjects in Britain today, immigration.
Immigration is not only the most controversial topic of debate in today's Britain, but also the one that seems never to go away. With the rise of UKIP, failed Tory immigration targets and a looming referendum on Scottish Independence, border control and the quantity of people entering our country, and by extension, membership of the European Union, are constantly at the forefront of the socio-political debate in this country. Immigration, as a political hot-potato, is as persistent as the presence of boy-bands in the world of pop music.

What really concerns me, here in Hellfire Corner, is the rise of Nigel Farage and UKIP. This political party has done more than any other in Britain to stoke up feelings of xenophobia and mistrust of the outsider. In times of economic hardship and large amounts of unemployment, people start to question why they have no job and/or why they are hard up for cash. Rather than look at the drastic restructuring of Britain in the 1980s and 1990s and the laissez-faire approach of government in the 2000s which, combined, left the British economy unable to fully withstand the blow of 2008, Mr Farage and his colleagues would have us believe that Britain is under threat from great surges of immigration from the EU and other world nations, and that also, as a result, the country is now in the throes of degeneration and suffering from a malaise of self-liberation.

Now, if such arguments made economic sense, then the areas of Britain that took in the greatest influx of immigrants and/or areas with substantial minority communities would be where the UKIP vote would find its base, because conservative WASP*-like people in those constituencies, still in the majority, would recognise UKIP's argument and crave the salvation of Farage's "people's army". This is, however, not the case, certainly in terms of immigration.

A recent study by Eric Kaufmann, professor of politics at Birkbeck College, shows that "The typical UKIP voter has little experience of immigration" and that the polar opposite of the logical stipulation, stated previously, is in fact true. It shows, in essence, that UKIP's votes come from areas that contain little racial diversity and pertain to the image of what many would call "Little England". That is not to demonise these people; many of this demographic, as displayed in the article, are fiercely patriotic. The tenth paragraph does, however, encapsulates the point clearly:
"The party has tapped into local resentment regarding immigration, despite little evidence of dramatic change. But ill-feeling often veers into overt hostility."
 The quote that swiftly follows these sentences really makes the point empiric:
"'The colour of people has really changed a lot round here,' says South Ockendon resident Leslie, 43. She adds: 'I'm not racist, but when I first came here, there were one or two in my son's school; now you're looking at eight or nine in a class.'"
All of the above only serves to confirm that UKIP's success is based on successfully instilling a sense of fear into people, and stirring up any resentment towards change at both a local and national level.

While what the people of Thurrock and elsewhere fear is not justified, the reason they do fear it is! When unemployment, in June, was at a rate of more than 2 million out of work and more than 1 million of those on JSA**, people will naturally hold concerns about their job security and who their competition is for that job. Sadly, what is happening is that people are being led to believe that the competition for said jobs is foreigners. Well done UKIP, way to make people feel uncertain!

Rather than take this route, what people should be questioning, especially if they are a historian of modern Britain, is: What ever happened to Full Employment? What happened to that Beveridgean, Keynesian task of having zero unemployed? Because the task seems Herculean, no party says they will push for 100% employment. However, if peoples' job prospects were healthier and joblessness was not such a terrifying pit of no-escape, then Britons would have little cause to turn their heads towards immigrants as if all their worldly possessions were at stake.

People may also begin to remember that they, almost certainly, have ancestors who hail from somewhere other than the British Isles. I myself will never be anti-immigrant, because three of my eight great-grandparents were foreign! People may even begin to be thankful for the efforts of past immigrants; the motorways and underground tunnels built by Irish labourers, the thriving markets in Hull, York and the East-End of London that grew containing a large Jewish contingent and all those other aspects of British life that, due to immigration, we should be thankful for.

My advice to those right across Kent, particularly in Thanet, who may sympathise with people like Leslie, 43, from South Ockendon, is this:
So what if there is more diversity in your child's school or down your street? It doesn't make that School or Street any less British. Lets encourage these newcomers to our communities to be a part of it all, by keeping calm and actively welcoming them, not fearing that they may steal our livelihoods, because, as our compatriots in the big cities, student centres and other non-UKIP areas of Britain will tell you, actually, immigration is not all that bad!

* = White Anglo-Saxon Protestant
** = Jobseekers Allowance

The Jury is always out on Criminal Justice

This post comes as a delayed response to a large-scale discussion between family members on the implications of Capital Punishment, all in the wake of Joseph Wood's botched execution by lethal injection in Arizona. After substantial time to consider my views on Criminal Justice, I am still unable to give a 100% certain view on the subject, purely due to the nature of crime and the variations that exist between cases; one convicted murderer is not necessarily the same as another. A woman defending herself against a violently abusive partner, lashing out in self-defence may still be interned at Her Majesty's pleasure for murder, just like a psychotic axe murderer with a concept of "guilt" far removed from the aforementioned abuse victim. What, then, should be society's answer to crime and its perpetrators, because imprisoning any and all does not work and neither does the Stalin-esque approach.
Marshall Stalin once quipped on the finality of death as a problem solver; "No Man, No Problem!" Which would seem to infer Capital punishment for extremely dangerous criminals solves the problem of that criminal. Admittedly, such a system is, at least, straightforward. It is, however, completely and utterly riddled with moral, legal and statistical objections. I agree with Desmond Tutu; "If you take a life when a life has been taken, that's revenge not justice." Capital Punishment is not acceptable and should never be acceptable in the 21st Century. I cannot understand how anyone in Britain could see the Death Penalty as viable when we deplore justice in some countries where thieving children lose a hand for stealing, homosexuals are publically hanged and adulterous women are stoned to death.
Miscarriages of justice are not as rare as we would like in Britain and such a system would invite chaos if Capital Punishment meant the execution of someone who could later be found to be innocent. In certain terrorism cases, new problems would arise from such false convictions resulting in martyrdom.
A large proportionof Capital Punishment advocates incite the idea that the threat of the electric chair, hangman's noose or lethal injection acts as a deterrent to would-be criminals. This argument is false and the evidence shows why. If execution is a good deterrent, then why is death row in many a US State as populated as they are and not awash with empty cells? Furthermore, statistical analyses have shown that States with execution invariably have higher murder rates than non-executing States. There is no evidence of any credibility to suggest that Capital Punishment is a deterrent or a suitable sentence in a modern justice system.

So where does that leave us? We cannot let heinous crimes go undealt with and incarceration in prison is not the cure-all some would believe, besides, it costs too much in the modern age of human rights. (And no, we cannot do away with human rights; they are like the Nuclear Bomb, Religion and the iPhone - we cannot uninvent them!)
The first step is to stop giving mandatory prison sentences for drug users, alcoholics, and others with addictive, compulsive disorders. The same is true of those who commit crimes that originate from addictive behaviours, for example, gamblers who steal to fund their addiction or people who endanger others' lives for the sake of adrenaline. Any repeat offender is technically insane (trying to repeat the same thing expecting different results) and while they do not all require a padded cell and a straightjacket, Britain should be tapping its market of Psychologists to address these issues and fix people who are broken.
Some, of course, don't fit in to this category, such as our earlier female who killed her abusive partner in self-defence. One advantage to British justice is the nature of sentencing, and that a crime's nature can be accounted for regarding how harsh a sentence should be. Nonetheless, by its very nature, criminality is abnormal and this means prisons are largely populated by technical weirdoes. Psychology is a fast-growing, ever-evolving branch of science and should be exploited to its fullest to bring down the prison population and the economic drag on society it causes.
The bottom line is not to reinforce criminality negatively, but to show how "good" behaviour is rewarded either by its own merits or by a direct reward. We spend our early lives learning that good teamwork in sport will result in victory, that behaving ourselves brings good things and that we should treat others as we ourselves wish to be treated. Yet, at adulthood, for many, there is a choice between the mundane and unrewarding or an easier, sometimes criminal way that brings potential punishments. Some parts of restorative justice involve combining logic and empathy to illustrate why a wrong thing is wrong and how far reaching the repercussions are of criminality and if those elements are fixed within a thief, drug-trafficker or assaulter then half-the battle is fought in changing someone from a harmful drain on society to someone who fits in with what is expected of a civilized citizen.
Justice needs to be truly transformative, not merely a way of visiting punishment on people who break the law. Punishments still need to exist, but only in tandem with a system that makes those who are broken realize what has gone seriously wrong with themselves and then mend themselves, and their ways permanently so they can, safely, participate in making the human race work in its oh so idiosyncratic ways.

Cameron's reshuffle; The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

The Prime Minister has completed his latest reshuffle, likely his last one before the 2015 General Election. It is unclear  to me, at this point, what this represents in terms of the long game for the Coalition. Is Mr Cameron really a man of piecemeal moves and appointments to make his cabinet and ministerial teams less male and pale or is this substantial shift right the beginning of an Election campaign predicated on a basic message that says: "Sorry Tory grassroots, I've been trying to be a Conservative but those nasty Liberals have made me do lots of things I didn't want to do!" The next few months will be telling on this point.
I want to focus on two Cabinet positions that invariably draw my interest, Education and the Foreign Office. As a prospective teacher I am somewhat gladdened by the departure of Mr Gove from the DfE; like a child forever disobeying the "don't touch" instructions of a parent whilst out shopping, much to the ire of shop managers, Michael Gove has spent most of the last 4 years doing things teaching experts thought he really ought not to be doing, but he has finally been taken out of the shop and whisked off home with a quick supper and an early bedtime! As was aptly pointed out to me yesterday, it may already be the case that Mr Gove has worked his curse and his demotion may not ease the lives of teachers up and down Britain. Let us hope, however, that Nicky Morgan brings a fresh pair of eyes and ears to the job that makes her approach far more pragmatic than her predecessor. We can live in earnest hope.
While the above change was a cause for some relief, one change that truly disappointed me was the changing of the guard at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Despite his anti-European origins and his right-leaning tendencies of previous years, 4 years at the FCO has shown William Hague to be, possibly, the most competent of Cameron's Tory cabinet members and a very adept diplomat. Northern persiflage has been well-received around the globe and Mr Hague has applied British efforts in many fields of worthiness, including his most recent campaign to end the use of sexual violence in conflict with the help of one Angelina Jolie. Relative crisis was averted in Libya, opposition to Russian neo-autocracy in Ukraine was clear and the "Special Relationship" with America is still strong, all under the (perhaps surprisingly) safe guardianship of William Hague. In the grand scheme of British politics, perhaps the most valuable task Mr Hague has done is facilitated the expansion of Britain's field of vision, opening up to China, India and the economically-emergent South American nations that will be vital to long-term prosperity around the globe.
With this all in mind, why then has Mr D Cameron of Whitney, Oxfordshire, decided to replace the soon-to-stand-down Mr Hague with Philip Hammond, stereotypical "Arch-Tory" and ally of the Home Secretary. The ex-Defence Secretary (and before that ex-Transport Secretary) has little, if not no, sympathy with dealing with climate change, has questionable views on civil liberties including opposition to Same-Sex marriage and seems to have a quiet and contained personality that does not seem suited to the post of chief diplomat of the United Kingdom. Some of our best Foreign Secretaries have been loud and rambunctious (like Ernest Bevin) or at least unafraid to make there views about those whom they have to deal with known (like Anthony Eden's view of the Italian Fascists as "Gangsters"). Mr Hammond's approach to politics need to evolve considerably past his calm and quiet demeanour for him to remotely live up to Mr Hague's legacy. This is of course notwithstanding Philip Hammond's anti-Europeanism which will hopefully all but disappear as Mr Hague's did.
In summary then, there was one piece of good news in Cameron's reshuffle, even if we could be getting our hopes up too high. However, the overall tone of these new appointments is half pre-election panic to make the top table look more real and half attempt to move the Conservative position rightwards, away from the existing Coalition position which too-close-for-Tory-comfort to our Liberal Democrat mantra. I don't think the first element is going to necessarily work and I have very little problem with the second element. If David Cameron wants to start shying away from the achievements of this coalition, let him; we are proud of what we have managed to achieve and we will take the credit for doing so.

Serving our Public (Emergency) Services

Without a doubt, our emergency services are world class ones with proud histories that form an important part of our national identity and our sense of daily security. Ambulance services of the NHS have, of course, been with us since 1948, The fire services have been a life-saving presence in Britain since the 19th Century and the police services of the UK have been with us, in one form or another, since the inception of the Bow Street Runners in the mid-18th century. Today's bodies represent something relatively different from their ancestors, however, and these services find themselves ever at the epicentre of the Labour-Conservative battle of macro-management vs. cuts to their funding respectively. Under the current Conservative-led Coalition all of our emergency services have seen drastic cuts to their budgets that have put immense strain on the good work they do.
First I feel I must inject some political reality in two equal measures. First of all, these cuts seem inevitable with the deficit and economic woes left by the Labour Party in 2010, and when the Conservatives outnumber the Liberal Democrats by more than 5:1 in the House of Commons, and the Tories have control of the Department of Health and the Home Office, fair-minded liberalism is far less likely to reach the emergency services. Furthermore, it seems less justified in its potential application when Labour's macro-management meant too many managers in our Hospitals and not enough front-line staff with a similar problematic approach in the Police services. Nonetheless, I feel this is one of the sole points upon which I must criticise my own party as I feel our stance on the Emergency (Public) Services is, at best, lukewarm. Sadly, in this case, our stance is very much representative of the public's view: that we are outstandingly grateful (in spirit) to our police, paramedics and firefighters but have no real drive to ensure that they have all the resources necessary to do the best job they possibly can, but rather give them "enough" to do a job that is "sufficient". It is a considerable step up from the Tory policy which seems to be to provide the services with the bare minimum they need to do an acceptable job, but seems a far way off Labour's championing of the public services. (Of course Labour seem ignorant of the fact that economic failure and mismanagement does not serve the emergency services well as they too have to suffer when the nation's budget is stretched.)
This is why I believe we need to take a firmer stand on the side of our public services that, with good financial backing and when provided with all the resources they need, can perform better than they do under the current circumstances under which they already give a stellar performance. The problem facing the emergency response services is predominantly a political one, however I believe there is a deep-seated 'social-contract' problem that underwrites it.
The British public are, on the whole, unlikely to slate their constables, paramedics and firefighters on the basis that they do jobs very few of us would happily do in their place and they operate around the clock for our safety. For the last half-century, at the least, this dedication and quality of service has spawned this concept in Britain of these men and women as somewhat "superhuman" and giving us a belief that they can overcome anything. The gratitude of the public is, effectively, a given, and this complacency gives rise to a nasty side-effect; we have come to expect far too much of our emergency services which is why when "Plebgate" broke out, people were shocked to find that corruption vs. corruption was not an alien concept to an officer of the Metropolitan police. Now, in Britain, we have this "superhero" problem that always turns up in some comic-book film sequel whereby the costumed hero, facing some personal crisis has shied away from his/her "duties" and when the world starts falling to pieces, everyone starts shouting "Where is (enter superhero here)?"
This could be a huge problem for Britain if we don't start backing our PCs, paramedics, nurses and firefighters with what they need, which is not a 'politicians-know-best' Labour-style top down over-management strategy. What is needed is something that sits incredibly well with Lib Dem ideology, which is for politicians to turn to these services and say "What do you need us to do?" and then, believe it or not, do it. Failure to do this and continuing down the current path could lead to a "ruler" moment. Think of our emergency services like a school shatterproof ruler, reliable and shatterproof, yet if we apply too much pressure at either end of the proverbial ruler, it may not shatter but it will certainly snap!
It must be remembered that John Maynard Keynes was a Liberal, and I believe, in essence, we need some "micro-Keynesianism" for our emergency services, investing in creating better results. For all those conservatives who would inevitably argue 'There is no direct financial return from these services, Keynesian policies would be fatal' there is one clear reply: "Nonsense!" Let us take policing as an example. Greater investment into our modern Bow Street Runners would bring crime down, including organised crime that seeks financial gain. The curtailing of such criminal activity would reduce the economic loss in black market goods and the burden on the NHS from drug addicts to name but a couple of examples. Society is made safer and in a way that makes long-term economic sense; in short we are given a Stronger Economy and a Fairer Society.

Energy policy should be more "energetic"

This post bears great relevance at the end of the week that saw the announcement that renewable energy now accounts for 20% of UK Energy. Having been part of one of the first generations of schoolchildren educated extensively on Climate Change, greenhouse gases and renewable energy, I'm encouraged by this new statistic, glad to see that we are powering ourselves a different way; I'm also quietly happy to see that Liberal Democrat "green" attitudes are making this coalition environmentally friendly!
However, this is good news, not fantastic news. Fantastic news would be if the UK was powered by renewables 100% with a view to exporting energy. Considering what we know about Climate Change, (and yes it is a scientific fact, not a made up concept designed to terrify the human race for no reason as some on the right may wish to stipulate) there is no reason we should not be pushing to make, at the very least, the majority of our energy production based on green, renewable sources. The choice of methodology available is varied and bountiful, and we are not investing in enough of the right options.
Taking one particular example, tidal power, we can see how we massively underuse and underinvest in some green energy sources. First of all, the UK has more than double the coastline of France, but La Republique produces 200 times the amount of megawatts in electricity through tidal power that the UK does. Clearly this is one source we should be utilising to our evident advantage. This is especially poignant when research shows that if such a scheme were set up in the Pentland Firth in Scotland, half of the nation that Alex Salmond wants independent from the UK could get its electricity from said scheme. Any complaints of the expense of building tidal power stations seem, to me, to be redundant on the basis that waves will not leave the shores of Britain any time soon, so the investment in tidal would inevitably get its return in capital.
We should also look at renewable energy in a more personal, familial way. I recently discovered my 70+ year-old grandparents have had solar panels installed on their roof for the obvious self-supporting reasons. If people of that generation can go solar, why shouldn't we all? Your house provides its own energy just by standing still and catching the rays, how hard can it be?
There are, of course, one or two drawbacks to solar energy's potential. The UK is notoriously wet and overcast much of the year, so without substantial sacrificial offerings to one sun deity or another, Brits may not be able to get the same level of return on solar panels that residents of Spain, Australia or Jamaica might. Also, the installation can be expensive for some, and may not be viable to some families with whom short-term financial commitments may come first. Why not, then, pre-empt this issue, and build all new homes with solar panels on them and make them mandatory for new-build houses? They aren't terribly unsightly on modern houses; its hardly ruining a thatched cottage roof with a giant satellite dish.
This would, naturally, increase the purchase price of said new property, which is not quite the point when there is a chronic shortage of affordable housing in the UK today. Nonetheless, the taking out of a mortgage and buying a first home is a type of investment whichever way you slice it so why not take the investment seriously.Though the house may be more expensive with solar panels already on it, the long-term benefits of renewable energy, self-support and a potential small financial return (which people often get with solar panel electricity) provide a good basis for a potential future family home. Making your own electricity means you require less from non-renewable power stations and the energy companies, thus saving on your energy bill. We would not, therefore, need to go with Labour's ridiculous "energy price freeze con" but instead, reduce people's energy bills without superficially macro-managing the energy market.
Finally, the growth of British renewable energy would reduce our dependencies on gas, coal and oil from Russia, Saudi Arabia and other places abroad, which, in an abstract way strengthens the hand of the Foreign Office when dealing with these nations. With more green sources of power the market would not suffer as much when there are Russo-Ukrainian tensions or yet another crisis in the Middle East.
People of my generation are the ones schooled vociferously on Climate Change and greenhouse gases, and those in charge and the other older generations are finally listening, but the pace is still too slow. Why should we have to wait for our generation to take office and make the world greener when today's office holders can get on and do it now. Going green isn't just environmental sense, it's economic sense too.

Genesis

This is the beginning of my new blog as a politically minded graduate with my sights set high and a view to discussing important topics, putting my skills that I acquired as a History student to the test.
While politics may seem a boring past-time for old men to many, this is intended to be engaging to read for any and all with access to the world wide web! Some posts will no doubt be politics pure and simple: parties, stances, policies and the generic less-bloody-than-Game-of-Thrones-but-still-pretty-cut-throat goings on in Westminster. Many posts will, however, regard things more relevant to our everyday lives: Economic issues about tax rates, prices and future investments, Social debates that relate to civil liberties, justice, welfare and religion, and also Cultural topics that deal with the nuances of everyday life that only affect certain people depending on cultural preferences in sport, the arts etc.; this will likely feature less but must still be remembered as any good Historian/ Politician/ Social Commentator should account for the importance of all four factors of PESC (Political-Economic-Social-Cultural).
If you do not know me and have not already guessed, I'm a liberal-minded individual with about as many socialist tendencies as I have conservative ones, both being few and far between. I'm a Liberal Democrat and proud to be so; I believe in doing what is right, whether it is easy or otherwise and backing my convictions with morality and evidence (a potent mix if ever there was one).
Take whatever you like from my posts personally, but if you can bring yourself to share what I have said and tell others about it, great! Comments are welcome and if you wish to discuss/ debate then bring your well-evidenced A-Game!
Thank You for your readership
A.C.M