Farewell 2,500 Police Officers

The shocking headline about the full impact of police cuts has thankfully not been masked by the on-going phone-hacking scandal. That (however important) story has so far covered up the first rumblings of movement to outside providers in the NHS and the ever-increasing concern about the future of the Eurozone. Luckily, these police figures haven't slipped into the ether.

34,000 jobs in total are to be lost from our police service by 2015. 16,100 will be police staff, admin workers etc, and up to 1,800 will be community support officers. The rest will be police officers, 2,500 of which are considered front-line. We were assured that front-line services would be shielded from the cuts as much as possible. Losing police officers from our streets doesn't exactly tally with that, does it?

Look at the scenario. While cutting the number of police officers you are also cutting the number of admin staff. Doesn't this leave many of the remaining officers with piles of administration to do themselves? Yes, the Coalition have pledged to cut red-tape and admin wherever possible - and this is long overdue - but it is not going to happen overnight. Unless you can convince hapless bureaucrats to concede that all paperwork is not essential then the problem will continue. And, as things stand, as well as losing police officers, the ones left will be devoting extortionate amounts of time to tasks that keep them from the streets.

What about the bigger picture? Research suggests that burglary and robbery statistics could rise by 3%. It's not difficult to see why. Few jobs are being created in this country and, when they are, 80% of them are going to people born outside of the UK. While I'm not suggesting that unemployment leads directly into crime, it is easy to see how desperation may escalate.

Cuts need to be made. We're told this so often that our ears ache. But reneging on promises to protect front-line public services is not going to inspire public confidence in the people running our country. Theresa May, the Home Secretary, believes that the cuts to the budget doesn't necessarily mean that front-line services have to suffer. As with many of these cuts, the government blames ideology for the way cuts are implemented - it is political point scoring they say. Every time a Labour council is forced to cut services, a Tory council proudly asserts that they kept they services running. Of course, this has nothing to do with many Labour inner-city constituencies being deprived and Tory areas being affluent. Who could suggest such a thing?

Repeatedly, the country tells our officials that we want them to be tough on crime. An outcry against trimming prison sentences won a change of heart. How is taking police officers from our streets or forcing them to do more paperwork being tough on crime?

Telegraph article.

Guardian article.

David Laws

Now, don't think for one minute that I approve of extravagant expenses claims from MPs. As far as I'm concerned, the guilty ones should be put in a gigantic duck house and floated out to sea. And, hopefully, a sea creature will take a liking to them and save us the trouble of having to clear up the mess afterwards. However, I do have sympathy for David Laws, even when it emerged today that he has been found guilty of breaking parliamentary regulations. The full report will be published on Thursday but Twitter is currently slamming him through a grinder and I wanted to voice some support.

My attitude towards Lib Dems as a rule at the moment is... strained. I want to punch the screen every time I see Nick Clegg's ghostly face appear on it; I loathe Danny Alexander for his arrogance and/or stupidity. As for Vince Cable... Well, I have respect for the man's politics but I do wish he'd make a stand on occasion. He's terribly uncomfortably in the Coalition, a condition that is plain for anyone to see, and not standing by his principles is unforgivable. David Laws, it'll be remembered, was a prime engineer behind the Coalition negotiations - but let's not hold that against him. Even I have to admit that some things the government are doing are well-intentioned, if badly implemented. And that's the point on which I feel Laws could've helped. As crazy as this may sound under the circumstances, I trust the guy in matters of politics and finance. I also believe that, had he not resigned as Chief Secretary, the noises coming from the Treasury would've been a lot more palatable. Danny Alexander is almost incompetent, and his shocking arrogance makes him even more unappealing. If Nick Clegg is set on repeating that Lib Dems did not go into politics to make cuts, he better make sure Alexander is in earshot because he's towing the wrong party line.

David Laws is a competent and talented individual who made an error of judgement. He didn't intend to profit by it; he just wanted his private life to be kept private. If I recall correctly, even his family didn't know that he was gay. No self-righteous person can stand there and criticise a situation like that. Laws apologised for his act and stood down right away - a lesser man would've waited to be pushed. We've all seen the blustering of Jim Devine and Elliot Morley as they tried to wriggle out of punishment. I would argue that Laws's immediate resignation (and silence as the investigation was going on) puts him in a completely different category to the aforementioned ex-MPs.

I don't expect many people to agree with me. A lot of people on Twitter are content to hang him out to dry. Me? I want him back in the cabinet where he can actually salvage something of the mess Clegg and company have got the Lib Dems (and the country) into.

Striking Things About Barnsley

I became rather fascinated by the by-election in Barnsley last night, as it became clear the order wasn't going to be as clear cut as usual. I decided to stay up and see it through, only to find the Lib Dems sliding down to 6th and UKIP taking 2nd place. It was astonishing really, especially to be following the excitement as I was on Twitter. Social media might have a lot to answer for, but it could definitely be used as a tool to reignite interest in politics.

Anyway, Labour took a vast majority of votes and Dan Jarvis is now the MP for Barnsley Central. I have great respect for the man. I read an interview with him the other day and he seems to be one of the most down to earth, no-nonsense people in politics. As an ex-soldier he has first hand experience of our military operations, something which could be very valuable should Labour return to power. However, although he was the favourite, there are some interesting points to make about the Barnsley by-election.

1. The seat was certainly a safe Labour seat to start with. However, Eric Illsley has been imprisoned for his expenses. You would expect this to put a dent in the majority but, percentage wise, Dan Javis dramatically increased Labour's vote share from 47% to 60%. However, lower turnout has to take some responsibility for this.
2. The turnout was 'abysmal' as Nick Clegg said in an interview earlier. Yes, it was. At 36.5% it was down by 20% on the General Election. Now, the very fact that Clegg drew attention to the turnout suggests that he doesn't believe the Lib Dem's demolition in the by-election was significant. However, I would then wonder, if he places so little stock in turnouts of around 36%, why did he fight so hard against a threshold of 40% on the upcoming AV Referendum?
3. UKIP took second. I don't think it should be underestimated how significant this is for the party. All right, the vote share was only 12%, but that's still well above the 8% the Tories got. Forget the implications for the Coalition, this is an excellent result for a fringe party with excellent credentials.
4. The Tories and Lib Dems came in third and sixth respectively. Of course, this could be taken as the natural reaction to the cuts, and probably will be by most people within Downing Street. It's also one small area, which was always going to stay Labour. However, it's the vote share that's concerning. Both the Tories and Lib Dems scored 17.3% at the General Election. In the case of the Lib Dems, this has dropped to 4.1%. They lost their deposit for that terrible performance. Evidently, Labour have increased their share by taking votes, primarily from the Lib Dems I would think. And it's a sure bet that some Tories decided to vote UKIP, probably exercising their right to a worthy vote in a race they knew they couldn't expect to win. However, what about all those people that stayed home? It seems to me, on looking at the figures, that only a core of people fell compelled to go out and defend the Coalition. If this trend is repeated at the next General Election it could be that we've helped create even more of an apathy towards the British political system than we had only a year ago.

Resignations, Accusations and Appearances... Oh, My

It's been quite a week as far as politics goes.

In the space of a few days we've had Baroness Warsi accusing us all of Islamophobia, Alan Johnson resigning from front-line politics and Tony Blair appearing for the second time at the Chilcot inquiry. The latest news is that Andy Coulson, communications chief for Downing Street, has resigned, apparently under pressure about his role in phone hacking when editor of the News of the World.

Now I'm a grade-one cynic. I do not believe that the sudden resignation of a man whom the media and public have been baying for is completely unrelated to the wider political sphere. After all, what better way to appease the public in the wake of drastic and controversial NHS reorganisation plans than to give them something they've wanted for months?

Additionally, Baroness Warsi's comments, although not officially endorsed by Downing Street, have created a storm that has served well as a mask at the end of the week. Tony Blair at the Iraq inquiry is a delightful smokescreen for Cameron, one which enforces the vision that Labour were involved in an illegal war. It's been a great week for burying things really.

Alan Johnson, of course, was far beyond the control of No. 10. Having read an interview with him over Christmas I'm saddened by his departure and I wish him well (and I wish him privacy).

Stop Talking About Terry Jones

It seems simple enough. If you stop giving media coverage to an extremist individual whose outrageous speeches are usually only heard by a congregation of fifty or so people then there's every chance the extremist individual will disappear into the ether. After all, he just wants attention and the world media is currently playing right into that trap.

Most people know the name of Terry Jones by now. He is the US pastor who threatened to burn the Koran on September 11th this year in protest at radical Islam. The amount of coverage he garnered was ridiculous for a man of his standing yet the American public and beyond continued to watch him from a distance and marvel at the way one man could not only disrespect another religion so violently and vehemently but also show a complete disregard for the potential disasters he could have caused. Since then he has tried to qualify his views by saying that they apply to so-called 'radical Islam' only. The trouble is, Jones has yet to qualify what he means by 'radical' and I suspect his views on that change depending on which interviewer he is speaking to.

Now it has been announced that the English Defence League (EDL, a group who protest their fascist label at every opportunity) have invited him to speak at one of their rallies in the UK. These rallies have previously resulted in violent clashes between the EDL and groups such as Unite Against Fascism. Jones joining such a rally is indeed a coup for the EDL and Home Secretary, Theresa May, has revealed that she would try banning him from the UK on the grounds of national security.

Mr Jones must be laughing at the world. From one well-calculated publicity stunt he has gained the attention of several major governments. He is considered such a threat to our society that we Brits are trying to stop him setting foot on our soil. In the meantime, he is headlining on every major news site in the country, has a section in all the newspapers and is easily recognisable. I've even written this blog about him.

Yes, I'm adding to the problem but this is a widespread issue. We consistently give room to sensational stories in the name of free press. All this does is publicise organisations we'd rather weren't on public display. The furore surrounding every rally the EDL holds is a prime example of this. Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time as leader of the British National Party was the media offering a sensational slice of television that basically turned into a rant against the BNP. It was never about opening the floor to a lesser party; it was about showing a vicious argument on national television.

Do you remember in school you were told to ignore bullies and they'd eventually go away? Thanks to our reluctance to do that with Terry Jones he's now here to stay.

Perspective Please

There has been a lot of talk over the last twenty-four hours about our nation's 'shame' at failing to secure the 2018 World Cup. I, for one, find it quite unbelievable that everybody is paying this much attention to a sporting event which (depending on how corrupt you think the game is) we never had any chance of hosting in the first place.

It's sad, yes, that we won't get the economic boost of a second major sporting event in the next decade. It's disappointing that the media apparently (and I use that word with care) scuppered our chances of success. However, it is not half as 'shameful' as some of the other things occurring in our country.

Personally, I find it shameful that our troops are so ill-equipped in Afghanistan. Whether I agree with the war there or not, I detest the idea of our government sending anybody out there without the strongest hope that they will return and therefore funding them properly. It's reminiscent of sending soldiers to fight in WWI with barely a thought for their safety.

It's shameful that our politicians are prepared to sell their principles for their shot at power. It's shameful that two pensioners have frozen in this terrible weather over the last few days. It's shameful that our transport infrastructure cannot cope with this weather. It is NOT shameful that we failed to win a bid for a sporting event.

There is no shame in that and I think people may be confusing shame with disappointment and anger. By all means, be disappointed that we have failed to bring revenue and publicity to this country. Feel free to be angry that Fifa's seemingly corrupt nature has deprived us of the chance. But, please, don't be ashamed of our country for that when there are so many more important things to be ashamed about.

To Cap Or Not To Cap?

Today both Nick Clegg and Vince Cable have made noises to the effect that there will be some kind of cap placed on tuition fees, contrary to the advice given in the Browne Report earlier this month. It is initially thought this cap could be around £12,000, the level at which the Government would've started penalising universities anyway.

A victory for students? I'm not sure.

Removing the cap at the current level to allow for a reduction in funding to universities is an unpopular decision. It also looks likely to deter students from going into higher education. Now to some people this isn't completely a bad thing: the country is over-stretched as it is with graduates who offer little practical application to society once they leave university. However, the merits of individual courses aren't the issue here. What I'm wondering at the moment is whether we should be raising the cap to £12,000 instead of scrapping it altogether.

I know removing the cap is an unpopular idea but tripling it could be as costly to students. Isn't it likely that universities, eager to recoup their losses from their battering in the Spending Review, will raise their fees as a unit? All of a sudden even an education at a below-par institution could cost a fortune.

Of course, we expect there to be a lot of auditing of universities to ensure they are worth the fees they are charging. But how reliable are these procedures going to be? Considering the Government's attitude towards quangos isn't it likely that surveillance of fees will pass straight into the pocket of some harassed junior minister already struggling to deal with everything else thrown at his department?

I don't think the cap should be moved from its current level. Or, if it is, it should just be an upward nudge of perhaps £1000. However, if the cap is removed and a marketplace is created in the higher education sector then students will have the opportunity to choose. There will still be some universities who keep their fees relatively low to attract the less well-off. Equally, there will be competition between the prestigious universities: they will have to battle each other for their students and this process should demonstrate value for money.

I'm a little undecided here. I don't want the cap raised, I'd prefer it not to be moved at all. But if it must move I'd prefer it to be removed completely. What Clegg and Cable are doing in their pacification of disgruntled Lib Dems might just make the situation worse.

Iain Duncan Smith - Ignoring the Human Element

Iain Duncan Smith has irritated me today - and probably half the nation.

His comments, harking back to Norman Tebbit thirty years ago, have suggested that the next step in his battle to wean people off welfare will be to send them to jobs potentially several hours away. This is an excerpt from the interview:

There are jobs. They may not be absolutely in the town that you are living in. That's the key point. They may be in a neighbouring town... My point was, you need to recognise that the jobs don't always come to you, sometimes you need to go to the job.

Now, on principle, I agree.

I spent six months commuting from Darlington to Stockton by train with a significant walk to the station at the Darlington end. I was temping whilst studying for my MA in Middlesbrough and was happy to land any job to keep me going. I started work at 8:30 and routinely set off before 7:00. It was a tad cold on those winter mornings but I had my Ipod and a book for the train. It worked out fine, even on the two nights of the week when I had to continue my day onto Middlesbrough and study until 9:00 PM. I think I complained of exhaustion on more than one occasion but I got through it because I knew it wasn't forever.

Perhaps that's the point. I'm not sure if IDS expects such a working situation to be long-term but your life could start to suffer as a result if he does. I'm lucky. I didn't have childcare arrangements or a mortgage (I paid my rent upfront at the beginning of the year). My household bills, my food and my transport costs were all I had to worry about. However, I was lucky.

If you're in a situation where both halves of a couple have a lengthy commute to work then surely extra childcare comes into play? This is notoriously expensive, particularly after-hours. Some people are lucky enough to have family to help out: many haven't. There is no guarantee that when travel costs and extra items such as childcare are deducted from the commuter's wage that they will actually be better off than they were on benefits. Bear in mind that train fares are set to soar and bus subsidies have been cut.

Admittedly, we're in a sticky situation. There is no quick fix and individuals are going to have to make difficult decisions for some time to come. One of these may be commuting to the next town until things settle down. But how long can families sustain this? More importantly, will there be jobs to go to?

It does come down to a desire to take control of your own life and finances. I am wholeheartedly in favour of this. However, the point where the politicians are failing at the moment is when they persist in lumping the idle scroungers together in one category with the people who have genuinely assessed these options.

There needs to be a human element considered when politicians make these sweeping statements. As we've seen with George Osbourne in the last few days, the human element is usually sadly lacking from their consideration.