Ed Miliband, the current Leader of the Opposition in UK politics as leader of the Labour Party, has been a singularly uninspiring party leader. For much of this month has generally continued to be a particularly bland politician, who just about fulfils his role as Leader of the Opposition, and can only usually be relied on to state the obvious when it comes to national issues (the sort of man who, when asked about job cuts, is likely to say "this is going to result in more people out of work") without stating practical solutions. Moreover, he inspired greater ridicule than usual this month when an egg was thrown at him; while his bizarre, occasional inclusion of traditional Conservative attributes in his speeches (from adopting the slogan "One Nation", a phrase associated with the Conservatives since the premiership of Benjamin Disraeli in the 19th century, to drawing parallels between himself and another 19th century Conservative Prime Minister, Lord Derby) suggests his a Conservative-wannabe. With all this in mind, it is probably unsurprising that, despite being midway through the controversial term of office of the Coalition Government, the Labour lead is relatively small in opinion polls, while polls on Miliband personally tend to show far less trust and respect for him than Prime Minister David Cameron.
However, during the Labour Party conference last week, Miliband at last seemed to offer a thought-provoking alternative to the current government's agenda; rather than his usual meandering around Westminster-seemingly without any trace of a developed political vision. Although there is far greater optimism about the economy in the UK now (making it more difficult for Labour to criticise the Government on this fundamental policy area), Miliband has not only centred on the ongoing issue of living standards, with many enduring lower salaries yet higher living costs; but has also offered a means to confronting these issues. He has highlighted the frustrating issue of key industries in the UK experiencing high (and sometimes record-breaking) profits, while still raising their prices and consequently making life more difficult for struggling families. Rather than complaining without meaningful action to back it up, or shrugging his shoulders and effectively saying "that's life" and moving on; Miliband has advocated a more active role for the Government: demanding that companies, from the railways to energy companies, charge lower prices or face strict penalties. This is an attractive alternative to the status quo, and suggests a prospective government that is sympathetic with its ordinary citizens- willing to exercise its power for the public interest.
Having said this (with business leaders probably concerned for their company's profits), these ideas were promptly criticised as unfeasible- but I suppose the proof of the pudding would be in the eating. Meanwhile, though increased state intervention in the private sector may well have the effect of compelling companies to act in the public's interest if they are threatened with a big stick; it may also discourage them from operating in Britain at all, removing investment and jobs at a time when the economy is only just recovering. Miliband's focus is a thought-provoking and appealing one, providing the beginnings of an alternative vision for British voters- but if it is likely to jeopardise economic recovery, that would be too high a cost as everyone, either directly or indirectly, feels the impact of economic strength or weakness (albeit to different degrees). Moreover, Labour's economic record is generally viewed as very poor already: blamed for exacerbating the global recession's impact on Britain through reckless spending, funded through borrowing. So Miliband and Labour still have a lot of work to do to boost their credibility, but they've made a start... though it'll take a lot more from them to get my vote any time soon!
Sunday, 29 September 2013
Sunday, 15 September 2013
Peace Talks with Syria: For Better or For Worse?
Syria has proven to be further evidence of how the world of politics can change dramatically in a small amount of time. At present, foreign direct military involvement in Syria now seems increasingly unlikely. The rejection of involvement by the British parliament severely dented the momentum of those wishing to intervene amongst the international community. American politicians supporting military engagement, led by President Barack Obama, have seemed more defensive of their stance lately and are fighting to plead their case. This comes as the American public, like the British, similarly seems to be afflicted by wariness of further American military engagement in international affairs. However, the process took an unexpected turn after American Secretary of State, John Kerry, suggested that the United States was willing to negotiate instead of attack if it could achieve its goals peacefully. This prompted the Russian response of encouraging Syria to destroy its own chemical weapons- a process which could be verified by UN weapons inspectors, which would thus achieve the goal of removing the contentious weapons, that was stated as the primary motivation behind military involvement. This is the route currently being pursued by international leaders involved in the Syrian conflict.
The removal of these weapons, which breach internationally-agreed laws of weapons use, would doubtless be an outcome that would satisfy leaders who were disturbed by the threat these weapons posed. Moreover, on the other hand those that were more wary of the willingness of some countries to infringe the sovereignty of other states regardless of UN support, will also feel some relief that an alternative to military involvement is being pursued. However, whilst the use of chemical weapons would have been a clearer target for those wishing to intervene in Syria; the main motivation should always have been the moral imperative to prevent the Syrian government from launching attacks on its citizens on a vast scale- regardless of what weapons it was using. If military involvement is ruled out due to the removal of chemical weapons, then this effectively allows the Syrian government to resume attacking its own people through other means; with the international community returning to their position of criticising the Assad regime and vainly hoping for a diplomatic solution. This approach has been in place for the past two years with little to show for it. One wonders how this emerging stalemate in Syria will ultimately be resolved- particularly without external intervention.
The removal of these weapons, which breach internationally-agreed laws of weapons use, would doubtless be an outcome that would satisfy leaders who were disturbed by the threat these weapons posed. Moreover, on the other hand those that were more wary of the willingness of some countries to infringe the sovereignty of other states regardless of UN support, will also feel some relief that an alternative to military involvement is being pursued. However, whilst the use of chemical weapons would have been a clearer target for those wishing to intervene in Syria; the main motivation should always have been the moral imperative to prevent the Syrian government from launching attacks on its citizens on a vast scale- regardless of what weapons it was using. If military involvement is ruled out due to the removal of chemical weapons, then this effectively allows the Syrian government to resume attacking its own people through other means; with the international community returning to their position of criticising the Assad regime and vainly hoping for a diplomatic solution. This approach has been in place for the past two years with little to show for it. One wonders how this emerging stalemate in Syria will ultimately be resolved- particularly without external intervention.
Sunday, 1 September 2013
Humanity should be the Top Consideration with the International Response to Syria
At the forefront of international news this week has been whether the Western world should intervene in the Syrian conflict. Since the Arab Spring in 2011, when many dictators were challenged and toppled in the Arab World (though in the case of Libya, with outside assistance), Syria's Bashar al-Assad not only managed to remain in power- but also used the country's military force against the regime's opponents. In Syria, this has been relentless ever since, resulting in over 100,000 deaths. While some of those killed had actively confronted the Syrian government, demonstrating in the streets and knowingly putting themselves in danger; many others, including women and children, have been murdered by indiscriminate bombardments from the military.
Over the past week, the apparent use of chemical weapons by the Syrian armed forces against their own citizens was described as the crossing of a "red line" by US President, Barack Obama, which would consequently provoke an international effort to intervene against further such actions by Assad's regime. When setting these terms, one of Obama's most vocal supporters has been the British prime minister, David Cameron. However, the momentum behind an international effort to intervene in Syria encountered an unexpected obstacle when the British House of Commons voted against Cameron's formal suggestion that British forces should consider to getting involved in the conflict. Those opposing included all Labour MPs, who form the official Opposition to the Government, as well as some Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, whose parties form the Government. Thus, Cameron was more-or-less obliged to accept their verdict, and would consequently not be able to provide military force to support his rhetoric.
This is a very divisive issue in Britain, with the most powerful politicians advocating intervention and lamenting the House of Commons' decisions; while opinion polls suggest most members of the public oppose any role for Britain in Syria. I have strong opinions to add to this contentious debate. I think that there are ultimately two scenarios when it is justifiable to use military force: firstly, in self-defence, i.e. when a country has clearly been attacked by an external force, with innocent civilians as their victims; secondly, for humanitarian reasons, to defend civilians against overwhelming opposition forces that they have no chance of practically overcoming otherwise, chiefly in cases where a government is systematically attacking its own people. I consider the situation in Syria a clear example of the latter, with the Government, armed with the latest weapons, tanks and a trained army, taking on largely untrained civilians who have only cobbled together what few weapons they can. If this was an evenly-matched, ideologically-divided civil war, then I would agree that it is not for the international community to pick sides; but when it is a national army primarily against unarmed members of the public, to not intervene is practically giving consent to the Syrian government to treat its people however it wishes- even if it means cruelly executing their own citizens by any means they wish until they are satisfied. As we have seen so far, this not an even battle: it is virtually a one-sided bloodbath. Opposition and members of the public will not be able to practically defend themselves against tanks and aerial bombardments. To be left as an internal issue for Syrians to handle alone is to condemn an unlimited amount of people to death, as has been the case for the past two years. Moreover, those who say that diplomacy is the solution, rather than military action, need only look at the relentless bloodshed of the past two years to see that a new alternative is needed. And those who say it is "none of our business" should wonder how they would feel if they were under attack from their own government, with no hope of defending themselves without external support.
Parallels have been repeatedly drawn with Iraq, questioning whether military intervention is justified, when I feel the greater comparison is with Libya. In the case of both the latter and Syria, their authoritarian governments were using relentless force against their own people. In Libya, swift action that avoided "boots on the ground" achieved the goal of stopping that regime's relentless onslaught on its people- I had expected the same response to Syria, so I was shocked by the House of Commons vote. What arouses particularly cynicism is that the Labour MPs opposing the motion, judging from their public appearances since and distasteful cheers after the vote, give the impression that they were voting more for the sake of undermining the Government and playing politics, in an attempt to overcome the negative attention the Party received for supporting the Iraq War- all at the expense of thousands of lives. The motion clearly did not state imminent military action and regardless of future developments, but merely attempted to gain potential consent to unspecified involvement in certain circumstances, which would require another vote anyway. So those voting against the motion effectively ruled out any military role in any circumstances. Some say that consent from the United Nations should come first but, given that strategy seems to play a greater role in the United Nations Security Council's decision-making than morality, leaders should ultimately do what they think is the right thing and for the greater good. Those advocating a delay until the United Nations' has made a collective decision say that this would give any intervention legitimacy. But for me, neither legitimacy nor party-political strategy should be the top priority- this should be a humanitarian effort. The only consolation is that other countries will at least be taking action to stop the ongoing bloodshed, even if British forces are not there to support them.
Over the past week, the apparent use of chemical weapons by the Syrian armed forces against their own citizens was described as the crossing of a "red line" by US President, Barack Obama, which would consequently provoke an international effort to intervene against further such actions by Assad's regime. When setting these terms, one of Obama's most vocal supporters has been the British prime minister, David Cameron. However, the momentum behind an international effort to intervene in Syria encountered an unexpected obstacle when the British House of Commons voted against Cameron's formal suggestion that British forces should consider to getting involved in the conflict. Those opposing included all Labour MPs, who form the official Opposition to the Government, as well as some Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, whose parties form the Government. Thus, Cameron was more-or-less obliged to accept their verdict, and would consequently not be able to provide military force to support his rhetoric.
This is a very divisive issue in Britain, with the most powerful politicians advocating intervention and lamenting the House of Commons' decisions; while opinion polls suggest most members of the public oppose any role for Britain in Syria. I have strong opinions to add to this contentious debate. I think that there are ultimately two scenarios when it is justifiable to use military force: firstly, in self-defence, i.e. when a country has clearly been attacked by an external force, with innocent civilians as their victims; secondly, for humanitarian reasons, to defend civilians against overwhelming opposition forces that they have no chance of practically overcoming otherwise, chiefly in cases where a government is systematically attacking its own people. I consider the situation in Syria a clear example of the latter, with the Government, armed with the latest weapons, tanks and a trained army, taking on largely untrained civilians who have only cobbled together what few weapons they can. If this was an evenly-matched, ideologically-divided civil war, then I would agree that it is not for the international community to pick sides; but when it is a national army primarily against unarmed members of the public, to not intervene is practically giving consent to the Syrian government to treat its people however it wishes- even if it means cruelly executing their own citizens by any means they wish until they are satisfied. As we have seen so far, this not an even battle: it is virtually a one-sided bloodbath. Opposition and members of the public will not be able to practically defend themselves against tanks and aerial bombardments. To be left as an internal issue for Syrians to handle alone is to condemn an unlimited amount of people to death, as has been the case for the past two years. Moreover, those who say that diplomacy is the solution, rather than military action, need only look at the relentless bloodshed of the past two years to see that a new alternative is needed. And those who say it is "none of our business" should wonder how they would feel if they were under attack from their own government, with no hope of defending themselves without external support.
Parallels have been repeatedly drawn with Iraq, questioning whether military intervention is justified, when I feel the greater comparison is with Libya. In the case of both the latter and Syria, their authoritarian governments were using relentless force against their own people. In Libya, swift action that avoided "boots on the ground" achieved the goal of stopping that regime's relentless onslaught on its people- I had expected the same response to Syria, so I was shocked by the House of Commons vote. What arouses particularly cynicism is that the Labour MPs opposing the motion, judging from their public appearances since and distasteful cheers after the vote, give the impression that they were voting more for the sake of undermining the Government and playing politics, in an attempt to overcome the negative attention the Party received for supporting the Iraq War- all at the expense of thousands of lives. The motion clearly did not state imminent military action and regardless of future developments, but merely attempted to gain potential consent to unspecified involvement in certain circumstances, which would require another vote anyway. So those voting against the motion effectively ruled out any military role in any circumstances. Some say that consent from the United Nations should come first but, given that strategy seems to play a greater role in the United Nations Security Council's decision-making than morality, leaders should ultimately do what they think is the right thing and for the greater good. Those advocating a delay until the United Nations' has made a collective decision say that this would give any intervention legitimacy. But for me, neither legitimacy nor party-political strategy should be the top priority- this should be a humanitarian effort. The only consolation is that other countries will at least be taking action to stop the ongoing bloodshed, even if British forces are not there to support them.
Sunday, 18 August 2013
History Shouldn't be Boring or Irrelevant
This is a short, personal annoyance I have regarding the teaching of, and perception of, history. Many disregard it as boring and/or irrelevant, and therefore not worth spending time on. However, it's my view that the method of teaching history (experienced by me, and doubtless many others too) is the problem. At school, I was taught random periods of history, with little attempt to link them together or explain the long-term importance of historical events. My memories of the teaching of history at secondary school include: the Romans, including looking at Roman uniforms; how feudalism worked in Medieval times; the 6 wives of Henry VIII; and life in Nazi Germany. Similarly, sightseeing tours and museums tend to refer to random periods and events without linking them together. The Imperial War Museum in London seemed to me to do very little to explain what wars have occurred, the reasons for their occurrence and their consequences; similarly, when I visited Milan a few years ago, I did a sightseeing tour of the city which referred to the landmarks of the city without explaining their significance and symbolism in the history of the city, and Italy generally. Consequently, history always seems to be presented like a trailer for a film: a series of unusual and attention-grabbing events; highlights thrown together in a random order that appear to be interesting momentarily but, due to their lack of a continual narrative, ultimately seem meaningless.
What needs to be done with the presentation of history, whether for the benefit of tourists or school pupils, is to do it in a logical and chronological order that helps to explain the development of a country, working from a logical starting point, and linking events to the world today. When historical events are explained, these explanations should include reference to what caused them; what happened; why they were significant at the time; and what long-term impact they had. Then, for example, the importance of King Henry VIII in English history should revolve around the fact that he established the Church of England- rather than the fate and number of his wives.
History is important in terms of national identity, for understanding other nationalities, and why the human world functions as it does. As with individual lives, past experiences can be used to inform decisions in the present that affect the future.
What needs to be done with the presentation of history, whether for the benefit of tourists or school pupils, is to do it in a logical and chronological order that helps to explain the development of a country, working from a logical starting point, and linking events to the world today. When historical events are explained, these explanations should include reference to what caused them; what happened; why they were significant at the time; and what long-term impact they had. Then, for example, the importance of King Henry VIII in English history should revolve around the fact that he established the Church of England- rather than the fate and number of his wives.
History is important in terms of national identity, for understanding other nationalities, and why the human world functions as it does. As with individual lives, past experiences can be used to inform decisions in the present that affect the future.
Egypt: Give Democracy a Chance
This is a very controversial topic and, having not visited Egypt myself and given that I don't personally know any Egyptians, you would be entitled to question my opinion on this matter in particular. What I say is based purely on my perception of events there from the news.
The status quo in Egypt seems to be changing on a regular basis, but at present there is great conflict between supporters of the army on the one side, and the deposed president on the other. In brief, this is how events have progressed so far: for 30 years, Egypt lived under the dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak, who inherited an authoritarian, military regime from Anwar Sadat and Gamal Nasser, who toppled the monarchy preceding them approximately 60 years ago. However, Mubarak's long-established rule was overthrown in 2011 during the Arab Spring, when similarly authoritarian leaders were toppled (or at least challenged) in the Middle East and North Africa. Following Mubarak's deposition, the army took over, forming what they promised to be a provisional government until democratic elections could be held. A year later, Egypt's first democratic elections were held and won by the Muslim Brotherhood party, with Mohamed Morsi elected as president. President Morsi's term of office was not without controversy, with the Egyptian economy struggling, while many were wary of indications of authoritarian tendencies from the new president, who occasionally resorted to ruling by decree. Due to a culmination of factors, there was public unrest in the summer of 2013, a year after Morsi's election, motivating the army to threaten to depose Morsi unless he gave in to protesters' demands. Shortly afterwards, it was announced that Morsi had indeed been deposed by the military, and that the army would once again form a government for an indefinite period. This is how it remains today, with matters escalating due to conflict between supporters of the deposed President Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood party on one side; and those supporting the military's intervention on the other. There have been deaths on both sides.
As an outsider with a vague understanding of the situation, it is my view that President Morsi should have been allowed to remain in office, at least for the time-being. Egypt was incredibly new to democracy, so the new president and government would have had a vast amount of work to do to consolidate democracy, whilst also overcoming Egypt's problems. These would not be easy to resolve, and would not be overcome quickly. Moreover, a government with such a vast task to take on was also bound to make occasional errors in its judgement, and was unlikely to be perfect. I therefore wonder whether it would have been better, and at least legitimate, for Morsi to remain in office and do the best he could at his job. By the time of the next election, Morsi would have had time to put many plans in place as well as the opportunity to make progress in some areas. At the election, the public would have been able to judge Morsi on his record, and decide whether to continue supporting him or choose an alternative government.
Developed countries around the world today have not always had political stability, high living standards and a strong economy (something quite clear in these relatively difficult times in the developed, as well as developing, world). A combination of wise reforms and stability are needed to succeed in government. To expect Morsi to make a perfect nation within the space of a year seemed unrealistic; so in my opinion, political unrest and military intervention came too quickly to give him a reasonable chance of success. In the authoritarian Arab monarchies, such as Jordan, they have had the stability offered by their monarch; but there have also been gradual concessions to democracy which have managed to achieve both stability and progress.
In Egypt's case, I hope that an opportunity to make progress and cultivate democracy has not been lost.
The status quo in Egypt seems to be changing on a regular basis, but at present there is great conflict between supporters of the army on the one side, and the deposed president on the other. In brief, this is how events have progressed so far: for 30 years, Egypt lived under the dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak, who inherited an authoritarian, military regime from Anwar Sadat and Gamal Nasser, who toppled the monarchy preceding them approximately 60 years ago. However, Mubarak's long-established rule was overthrown in 2011 during the Arab Spring, when similarly authoritarian leaders were toppled (or at least challenged) in the Middle East and North Africa. Following Mubarak's deposition, the army took over, forming what they promised to be a provisional government until democratic elections could be held. A year later, Egypt's first democratic elections were held and won by the Muslim Brotherhood party, with Mohamed Morsi elected as president. President Morsi's term of office was not without controversy, with the Egyptian economy struggling, while many were wary of indications of authoritarian tendencies from the new president, who occasionally resorted to ruling by decree. Due to a culmination of factors, there was public unrest in the summer of 2013, a year after Morsi's election, motivating the army to threaten to depose Morsi unless he gave in to protesters' demands. Shortly afterwards, it was announced that Morsi had indeed been deposed by the military, and that the army would once again form a government for an indefinite period. This is how it remains today, with matters escalating due to conflict between supporters of the deposed President Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood party on one side; and those supporting the military's intervention on the other. There have been deaths on both sides.
As an outsider with a vague understanding of the situation, it is my view that President Morsi should have been allowed to remain in office, at least for the time-being. Egypt was incredibly new to democracy, so the new president and government would have had a vast amount of work to do to consolidate democracy, whilst also overcoming Egypt's problems. These would not be easy to resolve, and would not be overcome quickly. Moreover, a government with such a vast task to take on was also bound to make occasional errors in its judgement, and was unlikely to be perfect. I therefore wonder whether it would have been better, and at least legitimate, for Morsi to remain in office and do the best he could at his job. By the time of the next election, Morsi would have had time to put many plans in place as well as the opportunity to make progress in some areas. At the election, the public would have been able to judge Morsi on his record, and decide whether to continue supporting him or choose an alternative government.
Developed countries around the world today have not always had political stability, high living standards and a strong economy (something quite clear in these relatively difficult times in the developed, as well as developing, world). A combination of wise reforms and stability are needed to succeed in government. To expect Morsi to make a perfect nation within the space of a year seemed unrealistic; so in my opinion, political unrest and military intervention came too quickly to give him a reasonable chance of success. In the authoritarian Arab monarchies, such as Jordan, they have had the stability offered by their monarch; but there have also been gradual concessions to democracy which have managed to achieve both stability and progress.
In Egypt's case, I hope that an opportunity to make progress and cultivate democracy has not been lost.
Sunday, 11 August 2013
Taking Illegal Immigration Seriously
Immigration is a significant issue in British politics, due to a combination of the influx of workers from Eastern Europe as a result of EU membership, as well as the arrival of millions from outside of the EU over the past decade or so. My practical concerns with immigration have been outlined in earlier posts, but what I would like to draw attention to in this post are the Government's methods of tackling the issue: they have rightly recognised immigration, both legal and illegal, as a major issue in Britain; but their approach to reducing its impact in the foreseeable future has seemed very clumsy, seeming both embarrassing and antagonistic. I know it's easy to sit on the sidelines and criticise, saying "this is wrong" and "that was a bad idea" without offering practical solutions or taking steps to personally address issues- but a new approach seems to be seriously needed.
It strikes me that those who are concerned about immigration feel this way due to the resulting impact of vast numbers of competitors from overseas for resources (jobs, houses, etc), or resentment towards those who have settled here illegally when others, whether through birth or legitimate migration, have had to contribute great amounts of money and effort to be British citizens. So, concern centres on those who intend to remain in the UK for the long-term, whether legally and illegally. It therefore seems to be misguided to make life more difficult for overseas students, who only intend to stay in the UK for a few years and then return home, and during their stay will make a welcome contribution to the economy and also (one would hope) take home with them positive memories of their stay in the country. But steps taken by the current government seem to challenge this, never more blatantly than when the licence to London Metropolitan University last year was revoked due to questions raised regarding the legitimacy of its international students- creating an unstable and hostile environment for those planning to study legally.
Then this year, there have been vans driving around the streets of London informing any illegal immigrants they happen to pass that they should go home or face being arrested- not to mention members of the Border Agency approaching members of the public, asking them whether they are residing in this country legally or not and if they can prove it. Although tracking down illegal immigrants and reducing immigration of all kinds is currently welcome; sending the police and Border Agency around the streets, intimidating anyone who seems foreign, surely can't be the best approach. This manages to divide the majority of people between those who can relax, who are obviously British, born and bred; and those who should apparently be viewed with suspicion. Divisiveness and suspicion aren't good for society, and strike me as means to enticing British citizens towards terrorism. Also, we like to consider Britain to be a free country, where law-abiding citizens can go through day-to-day life without state interference; but the measures like those mentioned above suggest otherwise.
Instead, rather than having a confused muddle as people enter and leave the country (as seems to be the case, if reports of the inaccuracy of the Border Agency's figures for net migration are true), surely it would be best to track who is coming and going correctly (as we tend to assume that they do) in the first place- rather than intimidating mostly innocent members of the public as an afterthought. Meanwhile, of course illegal immigrants should be tracked down and deported; but couldn't it be handled in a more structured and discreet manner than through haphazard intimidation on British streets, as we have recently witnessed? Let's hope that the Government can find a way of accurately monitoring who leaves and enters to country; cuts down drastically on the hundreds of thousands who are apparently settling in Britain every year for the long-term; supports short-term visitors, such as students and tourists; and ensures that people are only allowed to enter the country if they are legally permitted to do so.
It strikes me that those who are concerned about immigration feel this way due to the resulting impact of vast numbers of competitors from overseas for resources (jobs, houses, etc), or resentment towards those who have settled here illegally when others, whether through birth or legitimate migration, have had to contribute great amounts of money and effort to be British citizens. So, concern centres on those who intend to remain in the UK for the long-term, whether legally and illegally. It therefore seems to be misguided to make life more difficult for overseas students, who only intend to stay in the UK for a few years and then return home, and during their stay will make a welcome contribution to the economy and also (one would hope) take home with them positive memories of their stay in the country. But steps taken by the current government seem to challenge this, never more blatantly than when the licence to London Metropolitan University last year was revoked due to questions raised regarding the legitimacy of its international students- creating an unstable and hostile environment for those planning to study legally.
Then this year, there have been vans driving around the streets of London informing any illegal immigrants they happen to pass that they should go home or face being arrested- not to mention members of the Border Agency approaching members of the public, asking them whether they are residing in this country legally or not and if they can prove it. Although tracking down illegal immigrants and reducing immigration of all kinds is currently welcome; sending the police and Border Agency around the streets, intimidating anyone who seems foreign, surely can't be the best approach. This manages to divide the majority of people between those who can relax, who are obviously British, born and bred; and those who should apparently be viewed with suspicion. Divisiveness and suspicion aren't good for society, and strike me as means to enticing British citizens towards terrorism. Also, we like to consider Britain to be a free country, where law-abiding citizens can go through day-to-day life without state interference; but the measures like those mentioned above suggest otherwise.
Instead, rather than having a confused muddle as people enter and leave the country (as seems to be the case, if reports of the inaccuracy of the Border Agency's figures for net migration are true), surely it would be best to track who is coming and going correctly (as we tend to assume that they do) in the first place- rather than intimidating mostly innocent members of the public as an afterthought. Meanwhile, of course illegal immigrants should be tracked down and deported; but couldn't it be handled in a more structured and discreet manner than through haphazard intimidation on British streets, as we have recently witnessed? Let's hope that the Government can find a way of accurately monitoring who leaves and enters to country; cuts down drastically on the hundreds of thousands who are apparently settling in Britain every year for the long-term; supports short-term visitors, such as students and tourists; and ensures that people are only allowed to enter the country if they are legally permitted to do so.
Saturday, 22 June 2013
Some Good Signs for the British Economy
The British economy seems to have been going along a bumpy road for the past 3 years: there has been just as much good news as bad on the whole, with no real extremes either way- for better or worse. Although this process continues, there are several reasons for cautious optimism:
Despite the hindrance resulting from the Euro-crisis and belt-tightening across Europe generally (a traditional key source of British income from exports); exports outside of Europe, to the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries, as well as members of the G20 are much more promising. And there are great expectations for the US-EU free trade agreement on the way.
Although British-owned car brands only include a handful of niche vehicles; actual manufacturing of cars has not been so high in the UK over the past 60 years as it is now, with Britain now exporting more cars than it imports.
A particularly praiseworthy statistic is that the number of new private sector jobs since 2010 greatly outweighs the public sector jobs lost so far to spending cuts. Also, more people are in employment now than ever in British history (though the fact that unemployment nevertheless remains an issue demonstrates how much larger the British population has become).
Problems remain, with government debt a relentlessly stubborn issue undermining progress- but things are generally heading in the right direction.
Despite the hindrance resulting from the Euro-crisis and belt-tightening across Europe generally (a traditional key source of British income from exports); exports outside of Europe, to the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries, as well as members of the G20 are much more promising. And there are great expectations for the US-EU free trade agreement on the way.
Although British-owned car brands only include a handful of niche vehicles; actual manufacturing of cars has not been so high in the UK over the past 60 years as it is now, with Britain now exporting more cars than it imports.
A particularly praiseworthy statistic is that the number of new private sector jobs since 2010 greatly outweighs the public sector jobs lost so far to spending cuts. Also, more people are in employment now than ever in British history (though the fact that unemployment nevertheless remains an issue demonstrates how much larger the British population has become).
Problems remain, with government debt a relentlessly stubborn issue undermining progress- but things are generally heading in the right direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)