2011, all doom and gloom

Since when did social cohesion mean segregation? Well since the Neo-Conservative Douglas Murray decided his center for social cohesion would investigate minority communities without investigating the "indigenous" white community. Since when did fairness mean poverty? Since Nick Clegg jumped into bed with David Cameron and agreed that as long as they are ok everyone else can go to hell. Is it me or does nobody even understand the concept of morality anymore...

Over the last few months there have been several events which would have been funny if not so heartbreaking. At home we see David and Co. ignoring the people and plowing ahead with cuts whilst some of the most economically gifted minds in the world tell him its madness, in America we have a situation where union rights are being curtailed, again against the will of the mass of people, with mass demonstrations, sit ins, fleeing senators, illegally blocked websites and insane republicans. Lastly in Libya we can see the few attempting to suppress the many and the west making a mere token gesture, which is far too late to prevent a brutal blood path.

Besides this in Japan we have disaster, all over the middle east popular demonstration is being suppressed and we can guarantee less jobs, more poverty and greater exploitation thanks to Giddeon and his fellow right wing Ideologue. Hopefully we will see the government support coming crumbling down over the course of the next year, but don't count on it. Without an economic miracle Britain in its current form cannot be saved.

Not the slightest bit Ideological ...

The Conservative coalition has not been far from my mind since they took power in may. There has been a great deal of media coverage surrounding the cuts agenda they propose and the claim made by the Conservatives that these cuts are needed to ensure the deficit is tackled, this message is teamed up with the claim that we need to grow our way out of recession. However when all the economic reports of the Christmas period had been finished we found out this startling fact that the British economy has marginally shrunk, apparently due to bad weather (an excuse not dissimilar to "the dog ate it"), yet our coalition claims it must continue the course regardless of this fact, that during the point in which sales will be at the highest, some how our economy is diminishing in size. Maybe rather then blaming the weather the government should look inwards and think of something else to do other then cut.

The deficit is untrue. The number they give us is true, but it is factually misreported for effect, while in terms of a numerical number we have a vast deficit, in terms of percentage in comparison to our GDP, then it becomes abundantly clear that the figure is not as bad as they make it out to be. When our GDP is factored into the equation then Britain sits in relatively good standings compared to the rest of the world. The actual number may be higher then that of Greece but in Britain we make much more money then Greece. Therefore Greece is an irrelevant example and just a scare mongering tool used by the Tories to make us accept this mandateless program.

So if the deficit is a lie what does it have to do with Ideology? 7/7 was an excuse for anti terror laws, interest rates/unions/whatever Thatcher woke up hating that morning was the excuse for privatisation/milk snatching and this is the Cleggeron's excuse for imposing its twisted ideology on us. Cameron dreams of a "Big society" because it means government can retract itself totally and the rich (also known as the conservative party) can continue to privatise there profits whilst socialising there losses. If there was growth, then maybe, just maybe, the conservatives could justify there actions. Instead we have unemployment, economic retraction and a whole lot of misery... so next time they try and tell you its necessary, just remind them you have your facts straight, and you know its nothing but ideology ...

And I thought the British were meant to be apathetic...

Today the Tories and their Liberal allies have voted to decimate education for generations by allowing tuition fees of up to nine thousand pounds but this cloud has a silver lining ...

Last time I checked I thought we were a nation of apathetic moaners who wouldn't participate unless there was a reasonable chance we would get to queue. Clearly the supposed breaking of Britain has had a positive side effect, people have remembered how to take a stand and fight for what they believe in (even if that fighting is literal). I don't advocate violence but I refuse to condemn this wave of political activism that has seen emotion spilling out in to the streets and rightly so.

In the twenty first century , our democracy is not manifested through enlightened popular protests of years gone by but of, riot shields , batons and barricades. Is Britain really a police state to the point that the only way our politicians can pass their legislation, is under the guard of heavily armed forces, something I would expect to see in 18th and 19th century Britain, when democracy first started to occur, or in Germany during Nazi rule, but in 2010 Britain , supposedly a democratic nation, any law that requires riot police to ensure it is passed is a law that is undemocratic, because if it can stir enough of campaign against it from the most apathetic nation in the world then clearly it is against the will of the people and politicians as our representatives should preform a U-turn. If democracy in this country must be upheld by a riot shield that democracy is not worth saving.

The proposal itself is something which is so riddled with flaws, any university can charge up to nine thousand pounds providing they ensure there are ways for poorer students to attend, obviously this will be an option almost all universities will take because they are receiving such a large government cut. Secondly this idea runs counter to the second part of this education shake up in which EMA - A POLICY DESIGNED TO KEEP POOR KIDS IN SIXTHFORM - is cut, if they wanted to ensure as many poor kids got into universities they could start by ensuring they stayed at sixthform. Furthermore after this students only start paying back once they are earning twenty one thousand pounds, and start by paying back very low sums of money, which means that it will have absolutely no effect on the way university is funded now, it will still be paid for by the government, just indirectly via loans, but will most certainly not change the current economic situation or save the government any money whatsoever. Fourthly, apparently those who don't do well from their education, will not have to pay as much back, however this leads to two outcomes A) whenever your wage increases what you pay back will increase with it, meaning that it does not benefit graduates to earn more because everytime they do the government will be after them for more money and B) if they continue earning a low amount, that university education that the graduate received will still be paid for by the tax payer. Finally , the sheer amount will dissuade people from going to university, the idea of having to pay 27 thousand in fees alone (factor in housing costs and it could be well over 40 thousand) and it is obvious that many people will be put off about going to university. And this is the policy that the police are being rolled out to defend, a policy which is ill thought out and doesn't even tackle the aims it claims it will.

It is totally understandable why people are speaking out against such a terrible policy, and its shocking to see that a party who promises to vote against tuition fee increases, still supports the policy even though the people who got them into this position do not support it. The continual rhetoric we hear is that the Liberal democrats didn't win the election, the liberals need to wake up and realise that nobody did otherwise there would be no coalition, and just because you enter coalition does not mean you should sell your soul to the devil in the process and drop the most fundamental promises you make.

Any political action , whether organised protest or civil disobedience is well against such a policy is well sanctioned in my view, how can I condemn anyone who is willing to take a stand, after all the one thing I have always lamented is apathy, so even in this darkest of nights of democracy, I still find the ability to smile at the thought that, in passing this legislation against the young, they have sown the seeds of there own destruction and, perhaps changed the landscape of direct action for good.

"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived."

" Neither by obedience nor by hardness of labour but by the status of being a mere instrument and the reduction of man to the state of a thing"

- Perroux on what is slavery

Freedom of Speech

Free speech is a lie, it does not exist and has never existed. People are limited in what they can say in a multitude of senses and there is fundamentally nothing wrong with that providing it is not excessive. Limiting something because it can cause harm is a decent principle however when that crosses over into limiting something because it may cause offence is where the problem comes. How far is this limitation on free speech aloud to encroach?

One of my personal favourite quotes (With the first link the chain is forged. With the first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, it chains us all irrevocably) draws reference to the danger of limiting free speech. It leaves us all in danger of having our ability to speak openly. Am I just being sceptical? Is it wrong to assume that people in power function that way. Your mileage may vary on this point but I do sit in the Acton camp (power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely) and while people in power aren't evil, the position of power corrupts them and their view of the world. This is especially relevant with the soon to be Tory peer Howard Flight's comments regarding the poor. I personally find that his views are abhorrent (something most people won't disagree with , publicly at least) and it could have easily been phrased another way but is he allowed to express these kinds of opinions ? Of course he is, while i have distaste for the manner in which he said it, he still has the right to say it because while offensive its not harmful. (if David Cameron said it, this would be a different matter)

Personally I think this kind of action is actually helpful, with people coming out and making comments like this, it allows the debate to rear its head and for people to discuss the issues, whereas before people may have silently held these beliefs about people they don't know, this allows the views that are ignorant or stereotypical to be challenged and defeated, and that really would be a victory not just in the realms of freedom to speak but also making sure people were capable of holding a reasoned opinion when they did. Because if a former MP has such an ignorant view point , someone apparently responsible enough to run the country, it would be a great break through if we could free speech itself , free it from ignorance and hatred so that in times those laws designed to protect us from harmful speech, those laws that could one day lead to the government suppressing more liberties are no longer necessary...

"With the first link the chain is forged. With the first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, it chains us all irrevocably"