Category Archives: Politics

Clegg AV Gaffe

Posted on by

Nick Clegg was accused of making another gaffe today, as the comments he made yesterday against Boris Johnson backfired. Clegg has accused Boris for his anti AV stance, accusing him of fighting against a system which he himself was elected under.

However Boris was elected under the SV system. Today Labour peer and electoral expert Lord Campell-Savours accused Clegg of not understanding his own system he said, ‘Nick Clegg doesn’t seem to know how the AV system he is advocating actually works’.

He continued to argue that Labour rejected AV in 1998 because it was too complicated and could produce a freak result. The SV system is designed to avoid some of the flaws of AV by making it harder for outside candidates to win. Liberal democrats have repeatedly opposed the SV system and yet now Nick Clegg is supporting it!

For arguments for and against AV, see our AV article below
http://frostmagazine.com/2011/04/av-vote-yes-or-no-reasons-for-and-against-the-alternative-vote/

Have you paid for the Royal Wedding?

Posted on by

It’s the Royal Wedding soon – 29 April 2011. Have you bought your tea towel? Have you paid £3 for a bottle of Kiss me Kate from your local Weatherspoons pub?

If you haven’t yet then you need to be quick, the economy needs you! If conservative estimates are correct, £1bn could be injected into the economy as a consequence of this wedding, but it needs you, the consumer, to get out over the bank holiday weekend and spend like your children’s centre or maternity unit depended on it.

Of course that doesn’t matter much because the wedding will cost £5bn to the economy anyway, making the whole occasion a loss to the tune of £4bn – hey but it’s worth it, right? It’ll be the most expensive day that the nation has taken off for a long time but who hasn’t taken a sneaky day off before at the expense of a day’s wages (and a taxation loss of a few hundred frontline police staff)?

I suppose it would be a bit rich to ask either of the families to pay up. The Middleton’s, despite much fuss being made of Kate’s maternal family lineage, which includes coal miners from Byker (as in Byker Grove, I cannae believe that man), are worth £30m. True, that wouldn’t be able to re-pay the loss to the UK economy for an extra bank holiday, but it could’ve at least contributed to the cheesey pineapple sticks and cocktail sausages.

And the other family, the Royal Family, the most Royal of all UK families. They have a bit of cash lying around to see that Kate and Bill’s special day is, er, special, don’t they? Prince Charles, through entrepreneurial ventures, is worth something close to £36m himself. And if that’s the case, why does it matter that in 2009 the Royal Family cost the taxpayer 7p more than in 2010. It’s not a saving, it’s an insult.

The Civil List, which effectively is the Government subsidy for the family (around £38m a year), pays for Royal staff and transport. The Crown Estate says that 70% of that sum goes on staffing costs. But how much do they cost, if you consider that it cost the taxpayer £14,756 for the Prince of Wales to take the Royal Train from London to Cumbria to launch a Red Squirrel Survival Trust. Or consider that it cost £85,700 in charter flights to get him and the Duchess of Cornwall to Italy and Germany in 2009.

Those are some significant staff costs.

But – a big but – they are worth every penny for the money they bring to the economy. The Crown Estate estimates £304m. It doesn’t say exactly how, and I’d love to see some breakdown figures. I’ll give it a guess though: tourism and trade. Though France doesn’t have a Monarchy, and they’re doing okay aren’t they?

Not just okay. France is the second largest economy in Europe, fifth largest in the world and has been growing consistently since 2009. Wow. France attracted 78.95 million foreign tourists in 2010, making it the most popular tourist destination in the world. Their tower – the Eiffel tower – is the most visited paid monument in the world.

So France can do international trade well, and receive tourists without making losses literally all over the place. I’m not liking the sound of this, but perhaps there is no point having a Monarchy. But how do we tell them that?

AV: Vote Yes or NO; Reasons For and Against the Alternative Vote

Posted on by

I’ll be honest this AV debate has me confused and I’m usually pretty certain of where I stand on things. I started off thinking that I was going to vote no but some friends of mine made a strong case to vote yes. So I’m writing this article to help my own thought process and hopefully yours as well.

I’m not going to explain the whole system in detail. With AV instead of having just one vote you have the option but not obligation to also vote for a 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. preference.

Reasons For and Against

Argument For – More voter choice

The main argument for AV is that it gives voters more choice. Instead of just voting for your first choice you can also indicate you’re second choice and more if you wish. This makes it more likely the candidate will achieve a majority share of the vote.  The argument goes that this will act as a stronger mandate and encourage people to get more involved in the political process.

J’s thoughts

It sounds like a good idea in theory. I imagine many voters would welcome the opportunity to add a second or more preferences to their vote.

J’s concern

Imagine a marginal constituency with the two main competitors Labour and Lib Dem. The Conservatives have no chance of winning.

A strong Labour supporter votes just for the Labour party. He ignore any other preferences because he doesn’t want the Lib Dems to win and he certainly doesn’t want to vote conservative.

A Conservative supporter votes for the Conservatives first and then because he doesn’t want Labour in he puts the Lib Dems as his second choice.

The first and second preferences count for the same and because this is a marginal constituency there is no chance of a majority with the first round of votes. Essentially the Labour supporter’s vote counts once and the Conservative supporter’s vote counts twice. (In the first round he votes conservative, in the second he votes for the lib-dems instead when the conservatives drop out.) Is this fair? AV supporters would argue it is, during any one round everyone is still voting once. I’m not so sure it is fair and this leads me on to the next point against AV.

Argument Against – All preferences have the same Weight

I’m not sure it’s right that someone’s 5th choice has the same weight as someone else’s 1st.  In fact it almost feels undemocratic. Why didn’t they just weight the vote prefences differently! i.e. a first choice counts for more than a second and a second more than a third etc… Increasingly as I write this article I can’t help thinking that the whole system is half baked and badly thought out.

Argument For – Less Tactical Voting

Pro AV supporters argue that the AV system eliminates the need for tactical voting therefore making the system fairer.

J’s thoughts

I do believe that AV will reduce the amount of tactical voting. With the current system many voters vote for parties other than the ones they support because their own parties have no chance of winning. With the AV system you can vote for both your own party (even though it won’t win) and another party as a second choice.

I think we would be kidding ourselves if we thought this would eliminate tactical voting entirely. People will always come up with elaborate ways to support their party. That said I do believe AV would help with the problem of tactical voting.

Argument Against – Time and Cost

There’s no doubt AV will take a lot longer to count (estimates suggest 5 times longer and because of this you will have to pay counters more.) There will also be costs in switching over to the new system. Overall costs have been put at £250million

J’s thoughts

At this time of austerity it does seem stupid to waste money on changing the voting system. That said of the £250 million almost £100million has already been lost on the referendum alone. We might as well spend the other £150 million if AV really is the right system but we better be damn sure.   

Argument For – Fairer and More Engaging

One of the strongest arguments against the current voting system is that people in safe seats feel disempowered. There votes ultimately mean almost nothing since the same party is always bound to win.

J’s thoughts

AV will do very little to solve this problem, safe seats will continue to remain safe. This problem is really more of an argument for proportional representation.

Argument Against – It’s Complicated! Would it Put People Off Voting

Whatever people say about this AV system it’s definitely more complicated than the current system. For me this is the biggest and probably decisive point against AV. The system is complicated.

Do I have to put a second preference? / How many prefences do I or can I put?/When does my 4th preference count? Etc.  !#$%^&*

J’s Thoughts

My biggest concern is that it might discourage people from voting. Am I being patronising? I don’t think so. People are busy and who can be bothered to go through the rules of a voting system? Are you going to vote if you don’t know how the system works. Some will but I fear some will be put off. 1 vote keeps it simple.

My Conclusion

Keep it Simple. I started off writing this article genuinely not sure which way I would vote. I’ve concluded the current system may not be perfect but AV isn’t the right replacement for us. Our democracy is strongest when we keep things simple.

Labour’s Debt Legacy

Posted on by

You (every UK household) will pay £2,128 in taxes this year just to cover interest debt repayments!

That’s not to pay off the debt, that’s just to cover the interest. That is Labour’s legacy.

The worst part is this amount is set to increase as the national debt continues to soar thanks to the estimated £146billion budget deficit this year (and that’s after the cuts)!

In 1997 Labour inherited a budget that was in balance and set to move into surplus. That is a budget deficit of £0. With the budget deficit moving to a surplus the Labour government wasted a valuable opportunity to pay off some of the UK’s debt.

It’s so infuriating that that £2128 in taxes we’re all paying today to cover interest debt repayments need not exist at all.

What the previous Labour government actually did was go on a massive spending spree with borrowed money. Government spending soared from £309billion in 1997 (40% of GDP) to £647 billion in 2010 (52% of GDP). The Labour government mortgaged Britain’s future to achieve political success in the short term. Ultimately their actions were profoundly irresponsible and selfish. ‘Weak politicians have bribed voters with endless amounts of borrowed cash’

The UK now owes over £31,000 for every person in employment!

See the debt bomb for an idea of the scale of the debt and how fast the debt it is increasing http://www.debtbombshell.com/

No one wants these cuts. But we need to except that we can’t spend more money than we have. If so much money wasn’t going on interest re-payments there would be no need for cuts. But the fact is Labour has created this debt and we can’t just ignore it.

Quite frankly it was sickening to watch Ed Milliband giving a speech to anti-cuts protestors, when it was his party who got us in this situation in the first place.

His attempts to link the anti-cuts protests to the anti-apartheid movement and the suffragettes were ridiculous if not offensive.

Let us not forget the lessons this has taught us. We all need to take a longer term view. Politicians but us voters as well. And there needs to be more transparency. Personally I found George Osborne’s recent budget much easier to follow than the old Brown ones.

The fact is the previous government spent money it didn’t have and now you have to pay it off. Let’s learn the lessons. Don’t let any government do it again.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7495214/Budget-2010-Relentless-march-of-state-spending.html
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1990_2011&state=UK&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=2008&chart=F0-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=l&color=c&title=Overall%20Public%20Spending%20Chart
http://www.debtbombshell.com/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12830224
http://cluaran.free.fr/debt.html

Daniel Craig Dresses Up As a Women To Promote Equality

Posted on by

It sees 007 star Daniel Craig undergo a dramatic makeover as he puts himself, quite literally, in a woman’s shoes. Directed by acclaimed ‘Nowhere Boy’ director/conceptual artist Sam Taylor-Wood, scripted by Jane Goldman (‘Kick Ass’) and featuring the voice of Dame Judi Dench reprising her role as ‘M’, the film will be screened in cinemas and streamed online in a bid to highlight the levels of inequality that persist between men and women in the UK and worldwide. It is the first film featuring Bond to be directed by a woman.

Weareequals.org

Rape: The No Crime Crime?

Posted on by

There are not many subjects that people want to talk about less than rape. It’s never a nice subject and also evokes controversy. But, in my opinion, what is really controversial is how easy it is to get away with. In fact In 1977, according to one report, 30% of rape cases ended in conviction in the UK. Today it is 6%. The plan to grant anonymity to rape suspects was a surprise inclusion in the government’s coalition agreement in May. It seems to have been dropped by the Ministry of Justice, but the fact that such a law was thought up says little about our government’s respect for women who have to endure such an ordeal. The ministry said it had not ruled out anonymity between arrest and charge, something that is more understandable.

It was not in the Conservative or Liberal Democrat election manifestos, although it had been Lib Dem policy since 2006.

The coalition agreement pledged to “extend anonymity in rape cases to defendants”, with ministers stressing the need to “protect anyone who may be wrongly accused from harmful stigma”.

Prime Minister David Cameron appeared to bow to pressure from campaigners when he said he favoured a “limited extension” to the law to cover the period between arrest and charge.

Campaign group Women Against Rape said they were “glad the government has been forced to back down”.

A spokeswoman said: “Why should men accused of rape have special protection not offered to those facing charges of murder, terrorism or child abuse?

“People are no more likely to be falsely accused of rape than of other crimes. Why this attempt to further discredit and discriminate against rape survivors?”

Conservative MP Louise Bagshawe told The Observer that by “singling out rape in this way, ministers are sending a negative signal about women and those who accuse men of rape”.

The Truth is that 1 in 4 women have experienced rape or attempted rape, 95% of cases are never reported, 23% of reported cases are ‘no crime,’ or thrown out, by the police. Over 66% of reported cases never make it to court and the conviction rate is a depressing 6.5% for reported cases. It seems rape is the easiest crime to get away with. Then there is the fact that marital rape in the United Kingdom was only made illegal in 1994. By Michael Howard.

In a recent article in the London’s Evening Standard Met officers repeatedly breached official rules by writing off rape allegations as “no crime” incidents, a Scotland Yard confidential report revealed.

There was also delays in giving victims early specialist assistance, inadequate record-keeping and failure to arrange medical examinations.

The Met said the Sapphire units had now been reorganised and are run by the Yard’s Violent Crime Directorate.

In fact, it was announced in late 2010 that Scotland Yard boosting a specialist sex offences squad in response to a shock rise in rapes reported in London. Rape was up 37 percent in just 12 months.

Police believe much of the increase is due to women becoming more confident in reporting attacks because of a change in tactics in dealing with rapes, rather than a rise in offences.

There has also been a significant increase in “relationship rapes” involving couples. Which are hard to prove. All of this may have something good coming out of it.

There is a newly launched £21.5 million Sapphire unit, with a central command and new intelligence cell, that tackles sex offences across London.

A spokesman said: “The new Sapphire unit is completely victim-based. First of all when victims come forward we believe them and take their allegations seriously. That is our mantra. Secondly we will turn over every stone to get to the bottom of what happened. We have anecdotal evidence from rape crisis centres and havens to say word is getting round that [victims] will be treated with respect and dignity.”

Let’s all wish them good luck and hope for the best.

 

U.S. STATISTICS From Feminist.com

Fact: 17.6 % of women in the United States have survived a completed or attempted rape. Of these, 21.6% were younger than age 12 when they were first raped, and 32.4% were between the ages of 12 and 17. (Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women, Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, November, 2000)

Fact: The FBI estimates that only 37% of all rapes are reported to the police. U.S. Justice Department statistics are even lower, with only 26% of all rapes or attempted rapes being reported to law enforcement officials.

Fact: The National College Women Sexual Victimization Study estimated that between 1 in 4 and 1 in 5 college women experience completed or attempted rape during their college years (Fisher 2000).

Fact: Every two minutes, somewhere in America, someone is sexually assaulted. (Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN) calculation based on 2000 National Crime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice)

Fact: One out of every six American women have been the victims of an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. (Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women Survey, National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1998)

Fact: Factoring in unreported rapes, about 5% – one out of twenty – of rapists will ever spend a day in jail. 19 out of 20 will walk free. (Probability statistics based on US Department of Justice Statistics)

Fact: Fewer than half (48%) of all rapes and sexual assaults are reported to the police (DOJ 2001).

Fact: Sexual violence is associated with a host of short- and long-term problems, including physical injury and illness, psychological symptoms, economic costs, and death (National Research Council 1996).

Fact: Rape victims often experience anxiety, guilt, nervousness, phobias, substance abuse, sleep disturbances, depression, alienation, sexual dysfunction, and aggression. They often distrust others and replay the assault in their minds, and they are at increased risk of future victimization (DeLahunta 1997).

Fact: Sexual violence victims exhibit a variety of psychological symptoms that are similar to those of victims of other types of trauma, such as war and natural disaster (National Research Council 1996). A number of long-lasting symptoms and illnesses have been associated with sexual victimization including chronic pelvic pain; premenstrual syndrome; gastrointestinal disorders; and a variety of chronic pain disorders, including headache, back pain, and facial pain (Koss 1992).Between 4% and 30% of rape victims contract sexually transmitted diseases as a result of the victimization (Resnick 1997).

Celebrities Get Lippy For ActionAid

Posted on by

JOANNA LUMLEY, KATHY BURKE, SOPHIE ELLIS-BEXTOR, BEVERLEY KNIGHT, ANNIE MAC AND MIRANDA RICHARDSON GET LIPPY FOR ACTIONAID

Celebrities mark the 100th anniversary of INTERNATIONAL WOMENS’ DAY on MARCH 8th 2011 by letting rip on women’s rights for the launch of ActionAid’s GET LIPPY campaign.

Celebrated photographer Rankin and anti-poverty charity ActionAid have joined forces to highlight the inequalities faced by millions of women across the world.

Together they asked six high-profile women to be photographed in support of women in developing countries who are speaking up to claim their rights and improve their lives – to GET LIPPY for women living in poverty.

March 8th is the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day.

For millions, it is the time to celebrate the economic, political and social achievements women have made since the first International Women’s Day when people marched across Europe for a woman’s right to vote, work and hold public office.

For ActionAid, International Women’s Day is also a time to shine a spotlight on the struggles women face now in the developing world and to build solidarity to tackle the urgent challenges ahead. ActionAid campaigns for a world where women and men, girls and boys, have equally good chances in life, free from want and free from fear.

Getting Lippy…. ActionAid asked the celebrities to send a message of support to the millions of women in the developing world who are struggling everyday to improve their lives.

Since ActionAid believes that more unites women than divides them, the charity also asked the celebrities to say what they thought was the best and worst thing about being a woman today.

JOANNA LUMLEY said: “I have travelled in all kinds of countries so I know some of the terrible disadvantages women have been struggling under and continue to struggle under all across the world. I want them to know that we are going to help, we are there for you.”

On what the best and worst thing about being a woman is “It’s obvious what women are best at. Multi-tasking, we are genetically able to multi-task – men can’t do that. What’s worst? The way we have been discriminated against in all religions and in all societies throughout all time. It’s incredible to think it’s not even 100 years since women got the vote in this country – bad.”

The British public can also GET LIPPY and send their messages to: www.actionaid.org.uk/iwd

Facts and statistics
1. One in three women will experience violence at some point in their lives.
2. An estimated 5,000 women worldwide are murdered each year in what are referred to as ‘honour killings’.
3. At least three quarters of civilians killed in war are women and children.
4. In Afghanistan, 80 per cent of women experience domestic violence.
5. More than 200,000 cases of rape have been documented in the Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.
6. Nearly half of all sexual assaults worldwide are against girls under 15.
7. Over two out of three people living in extreme poverty are women.
8. Women make up 70% – 80% of the world’s poor, illiterate and refugee populations
9. Sexual and domestic violence persist, despite some major advances in legislation.
10. In many parts of the world women aren’t allowed to own property or keep money they earn.
11. More girls than boys are denied an education.
12. While we have some prominent women heads of state, men still have a monopoly on decision-making — from village councils to national government and disaster response committees — so policies tend to ignore women’s needs.

A Guide to the new cost of traveling in London. {Travel}

Posted on by

While main line season ticket rail fares rise by an average of 5.8% from Sunday, bus and Tube fares in London are going up by an average of 6.8%.

Here is a guide to the new cost of traveling in London.

Buses and Trams

* Oyster pay as you go fares increase by 10p to £1.30
* A single cash fare rises from £2 to £2.20

Tube, DLR, Overground

* The Zone 1 pay as you go fare rises by 10p to £1.90
* Oyster pay as you go fares traveling into Zone 1 in the evening rush hour are reduced to the off-peak rate
* The refundable deposit on a new Oyster card increased from £3 to £5.
* A Visitor Oyster card will cost £3.

Travelcard changes

One-Day Travelcards between Zones 2 and 6 are being withdrawn.

The new ticket price changes on public transport come into effect from Sunday 2nd January.:

Oyster Ticket Stops will no longer sell One Day Travelcards.

Maximum fare for not touching in/out

If you don’t touch in and out on the Tube, DLR, London Overground and National Rail, you may be charged a maximum Oyster fare of up to £7.40.

Travel overnight on New Year’s Eve will be free.

Transport for London (TfL) said that although some one-day Travelcards were being withdrawn, by switching to Oyster cards “most customers should see little increase in their travel costs”.

London mayor Boris Johnson said: “I have kept the fares for 2011 at the absolute minimum while still protecting the vital improvements that London’s transport network needs. Those improvements include upgrades to the Tube, the delivery of (the cross-London scheme) Crossrail, and maintenance of London’s bus network.

“I promised to protect free and concessionary travel for those needing it most and this package does exactly that.”

He went on: “Even in difficult times I am not passing the buck to the travelling public; we have stuck with the fare rise we said we would deliver last year and we continue to make efficiencies at TfL in order to make sure Londoners are getting the best value for money possible.”