Unemployment falls, pay rises

Statistics show that the average pay for UK workers is now higher than inflation, according to the Office of National Statistics (ONS).

Figures released today show that wages – excluding bonuses – increased by 1.3% in September, whilst the Consumer Price Index was at 1.2%. This, in conjunction with unemployment falling by 115,000 from July-September, further evidences an economy which is slowly improving.

Unemployment is now at 1.96 million, its lowest since October 2008.

Could this be the start of an economic boom for the UK?

Ever since the Global Economic Crisis began in 2007, inflation rates (CPI) have been greater than UK average earnings. The reasoning for this is twofold; the increasing unemployment at the time meant that less people were earning an income. Secondly, the average earnings of the UK public decreased as firms reduced their pay, in order to cut costs.

However, with these recent statistics, it is clear that the UK economy may have finally recovered from the devastation that began seven years ago, restarting the economic cycle.

The economic cycle is a perpetual four-stage process, which tracks the rise and fall of an economy. The stages are as follows:

• Recession
• Recovery
• Upswing
• Downswing

‘Upswing’ refers to the stabilisation of the economy, with growing confidence in the market and low interest rates. This will eventually peak at an economic boom (the last example in the UK being the Lawson Boom of the late 1980s) whereby commodities and shares skyrocket; eventually this will crash and lead to a downswing, causing another recession.

It would seem from this theory that the UK is starting to hit the ‘Early Upswing’ stage – we have been in the recovery process of low property value, and are now beginning to grow again.

However, whether or not the economy can be controlled, as to break the cycle and avoid another recession, remains to be seen.

What would be the impact of an electoral mayor system?

A network of regional elected mayors is to be set up across the country, according to George Osborne.

Speaking in Manchester on Monday 3rd November, the Chancellor announced that a deal had been struck, so that Greater Manchester may be given an elected mayor, akin to the role Boris Johnson has in London. This would involve a further devolution of power from Whitehall, as well as financial subsidisation.

Many areas of the country already have an electoral mayor in place. Bristol, Doncaster, Liverpool and Watford are just some examples of this system, with the West Midlands, North East Combined Authority and Leeds rumoured to be next in line.

What impact would an elected mayor have on ordinary people in Southampton?

However, in the hypothetical situation that this system becoming a huge success, this could become a national political system, turning the UK into a quasi-federal state, with devolved powers across the state (similar to how the United States is governed). Taking this to a local scale, what would this mean for the city of Southampton?

Since the Mayor of London represents the blueprint of this system, it is important to take note of some of the powers that he has:

• Policing: Acts as Police and Crime Commissioner for the area, sets the budget but does not make operational decisions.
• Transport: Appoints the board of Transport For London (TFL), sets the budget, develops transport strategy and holds TFL to account.
• Emergency: Appoints 8 representatives to the Emergency Planning Authority (EFA), no further control beyond that.
• Housing: Develops housing strategy to tackle population growth, homelessness and relative poverty.

Were this to happen in Southampton, the result would be clear for the general public to see. The first significant change would be the removal of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire (currently Simon Hayes). The devolution of Westminster’s powers would also mean that the people of Southampton would be given a greater understanding of how the budget is spent in their area, and see the impact of this on their community.

In addition, more jobs would become available through the creation of different committees such as the EFA. This would help to reduce unemployment in the area and thus improve the local economy.

However, not every impact would necessarily be positive. For example, an elected mayor may lack legitimacy in power, especially in Southampton. Of the 1,448,374 registered voters, the turnout barely passed 211,000; this meant that the voter turnout for the election was only 14.63%. If the mayoral election had the same lack of interest, whoever was elected would not be able to claim any legitimacy to their power – they would not represent a fair proportion of the electorate.

In conclusion, the idea of an elected mayor is good in theory; it would further devolve power from central government, which currently is what the general public seems to be striving for. On the other hand, it could lack any sort of legitimacy, failing to represent the public and damaging the authority of the state.

Labour Favour Senate to House of Lords

Labour Party Leader Ed Miliband has stated that, if elected, he would attempt to reform the House of Lords in order to make it into a Senate, with elected peers.

Speaking at a conference in Blackpool yesterday, he said that ‘its time to have a senate… that serves the whole country.’

Would a senate similar to that of the USA be more effective than the House of Lords?

Under the proposed system, representatives would be elected from all across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This would be a regional representation, rather than being based on constituencies, and would be a direct replacement to the House of Lords.

Miliband stated that ‘the House of Lords is one of the biggest pieces of unfinished business in our constitution.’ Certainly, this is not wrong; for over a century the House of Lords has been under reform, dating back to the Parliamentary Act of 1911. The latest reform (House of Lords Act 1999) under Blair’s ‘New Labour’ removed all but 92 of the hereditary peers, in the hopes of making the second chamber more democratic.

In 2012, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg attempted to pass the House of Lords Reform Bill, which would have made the House of Lords a mostly elected institution. This was, however, blocked by the Conservative Party and eventually withdrawn on 3rd September 2012.

The reform which Labour have promised appears to be a more exaggerated version of this. The establishment of an elected senate makes the second chamber much more legitimate; they would have been chosen by the public, meaning that they are more representative of what the general public want.  In addition, this would make the Senators more accountable for their actions, meaning that policy examination would be more focused around the wishes of the electorate.

On the other hand, it can be argued that the House of Lords has served the British public well. They have been very effective in blocking legislation which they felt would not be beneficial to people’s lives. For instance, John Major’s attempts to increase VAT on domestic fuel in December 1994 was defeated, since they considered it to be detrimental to public life.

In conclusion, it would seem that the House of Lords is an incomplete institution, lacking legitimacy and not accurately representing the general public. However, it has acted as a check on the House of Commons, preventing the passing of legislation that isn’t in the best interests of the electorate. Whether a senate would be a better solution, or simply a logistical nightmare, remains to be seen.

Korea’s North / South Divide

Gunfire has been exchanged today over the boarder between North and South Korea, according to the South Korean Government.

For the most part, North Korea’s Supreme Leader has stayed off the radar in global politics. Is that about to change?

Officials state that the North Korean soldiers were seen approaching the border earlier on today. South Korean forces then allegedly fired warning shots, and the North Koreans returned fire.

This is yet another example of recent conflict between the two states. With North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong-Un’s return to the public limelight, North Korean troops fired at balloons (containing leaflets criticising the North Korean government) on 10th October. Both sides also exchanged shots from their respective warships earlier this month.

However, this conflict dates back much further than most people realise. Since the end of the Korean War in 1953, the two sides have, technically, been at peace; of course, we know that this is not the case. The Rangoon Bombing of October 1983 was rumoured to be organised by North Korea. The bombing of Flight 858 in 1987 further increased tensions.

More recently (December 12th 2012 to be exact) North Korea launched a satellite into orbit, causing the USA to move warships into the nearby Philippine Sea. This greatly angered the North Korean government, for two main reasons; the first is USA’s involvement in the Korean War – their siding with the South almost entirely removed the North Korean state.

The second reason is slightly more complex. On 4th July 1972, North and South Korea signed the ‘North-South Joint Statement.’ This claimed that reunification of the two states had to be agreed without external interference. Therefore, US foreign intervention would have been seen by the North Korean government as an obstacle in the way of achieving peace. An obstacle allegedly placed by the South Koreans.

In conclusion, it would seem that the conflict between North and South Korea is about to intensify once again. In a globalised world that is in the perpetual pursuit of peace, agreement and a future unification should really be an inevitability. However, with the two states seeking to settle the issue without foreign influence, the situation could easily get out of hand.

Clacton (Essex) and Heywood and Middleton (Lancashire) By-Elections

Voters have taken to the polls today in the by-elections for both Clacton, and Heywood and Middleton, which just closed at 10pm this evening.

The by-election in Clacton has eight candidates in the running. It came about after MP Douglas Carswell defected from the Conservatives to UKIP. The Heywood and Middleton by-election was due to the death of MP Jim Dobbin (Labour), and has five candidates.

---

Clacton Candidates:

• Giles Watling (Conservative)
• Tim Young (Labour)
• Andy Graham (Liberal Democrats)
• Douglas Carswell (UKIP)
• Chris Southall (Green Party)
• Howling Laud Hope (Monster Raving Loony Party)
• Bruce Francis Sizer (Independent)
• Charlotte Rose (Independent)

---

Heywood and Middleton Candidates:

• Iain Gartside (Conservative)
• Liz McInnes (Labour)
• Anthony Smith (Liberal Democrats)
• John Bickley (UKIP)
• Abi Jackson (Green Party)

But what impact could the results of these by-elections (which will be published on Friday) actually have, specifically on the General Election being held in 2015?

Could these two by-elections have significance in the way we cast our votes next year?

Firstly, the results will begin to set a precedent for public opinion in the run up to next year. Of course, one must bear in mind that these constituencies only represent a small percentage of the population, not taking into account ‘safe seats’ etc. However, it will help the political parties to understand where one another stands in terms of popularity.

Secondly, it will provide an instant reaction to the mainstream party conferences, the last of which (Liberal Democrats, held in Glasgow) finished today. Anyone with a keen eye for politics was watching the conferences with great attentiveness, as election policies were revealed; it will be interesting to see which parties conferences have served them best.

Finally, the two by-elections have the potential to firmly establish UKIP as a mainstream party. Nigel Farage was quoted today as saying that UKIP success in these constituencies would cause “a shift in the tectonic plates of British politics.” Indeed, a win in either constituency would surely show the transformation UKIP have undergone, given that four years ago they were considered a ‘joke’ party like the Monster Raving Loonies. The same could also be said of the Green Party, who hope to make significant progress after gaining their first seat in Parliament in 2010.

Conservatives to challenge EU human rights supremacy

The Conservative Party have stated that they want UK statute law regarding human rights to supersede EU law.

In 1998, the Human Rights Act came into effect in the United Kingdom, as a result of EU law being supreme over all other legislation. The content of the legislation essentially instructed courts and tribunals to interpret cases in conjunction with the European Convention of Human Rights (1953). Under Conservative plans, if re-elected, this will change.

The decision, which they have claimed would be “legal and viable” involves the creation of a UK ‘Bill of Rights’ similar to that which exists in the USA. This would mean that the rights of individuals would be codified and therefore make cases more transparent. The general public would also be more aware of where they stand with regards to the law.

On the other hand, the placing of UK statute above EU law could be considered a rebellion against the supremacy of the European Union. Although the Human Rights Act is only one piece of legislation, it could be the start of a slippery slope towards one of two things: either the EU will clamp down on the UK’s distancing, or independence from the EU will become a more valid option.

However, would an independent Britain work? Though we would escape the potential of pooling state sovereignty into a supranational organisation, therefore having greater influence over our own legislation (thus allowing it to be more transparent), we would lose the numerous benefits of being in the EU, for example free trade.

As a piece of legislation, it is arguable that the Human Rights Act is now outdated and so it is only right to update it; this would give the public greater understanding of their position within the law, as well as help judges fulfill their role more effectively. However, this is an issue which should go through the EU, because it would then benefit all member states, as well as prevent jeopardising the UK’s relationship with those high up in Brussels.

Brown pushes for devolution promises

Former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown has today asked for 100,000 Scottish citizens to sign a petition urging Westminster to keep its promises on devolution.

In the aftermath of the Scottish Independence vote, Brown has called upon the mainstream UK parties to stay true to their word and give more power to the Scottish Parliament. These powers include the ability for the Scottish Parliament to keep 50% of total VAT in Scotland (approx. £4bn) and raise an additional £2bn in income tax revenue.

Despite the No vote emerging triumphant, questions still remain over devolution

One of the key issues over Scottish independence was devolution – described in the Oxford English Dictionary as: ‘The transfer or delegation of power to a lower level, especially by central government to local or regional adminsitration.’ The main argument from the YES Campaign was that Scotland had insufficient state sovereignty as part of the United Kingdom, and Parliament could not be trusted to give them additional devolved powers. By contrast, the NO Campaign claimed that, through negotiations with Westminster, further devolution powers could be obtained, without the negative aspects of leaving the UK.

Alex Salmond has slammed Gordon Brown, stating that during the referendum campaign, the Labour MP claimed that the deepening of Scottish power ‘was already a done deal.’ However, Mr Brown does have a proposed timeline for his devolution plans:

1. 19 September: Begin work on legislative paper, requesting additional devolved authority for Scotland.
2. October: Command paper to be drawn up and presented to Parliament.
3. November: Issue of the white paper – a ‘first draft’ of the legislative bill.
4. January: Scotland Act to be passed through Parliament.

With the promise of further devolution being the main reason a No vote was passed in the Scottish Independence Referendum, it would be most unwise for Parliament to delay this process.

George Osborne plans two-year benefits freeze

With the Conservative Party Conference now underway in Birmingham, Chancellor George Osborne has revealed his plans in the event of a Tory re-election. The main focal point of his speech was a freeze in benefits for people of working age, for two years (this excludes pensions, disabilities and maternity pay).

Chancellor George Osborne has already brought about radical measures to try and fix the economy

The impact of this, claims Osborne, is that a ‘serious contribution‘ to reducing the deficit. However, the move will also have an impact on 10 million UK households, potentially causing an increase in relative poverty. This will certainly be the case in more deprived areas – especially considering that the freeze won’t take into account inflation rates.

This policy has led the Labour Party to say that George Osborne is standing up ‘for the wealthy few‘ a statement supported by the fact that the average working individual has had an annual wage fall of £1,600 (ONS).

By contrast, there were some other elements to the Chancellor’s speech which will be universally pleasing for the general public; for example, he promised to scrap the 55% inherited pension tax, as well as clamp down on tax avoidance, particularly from technology companies.

In addition, George Osborne reiterated that the HS2 scheme (a plan to create a high-speed rail network to the north of England) would go ahead, despite the exceptional cost of doing so. He argued that the social benefits to the general public vastly outweigh the financial cost of the scheme.

The Conservative Party Conference (which commenced today) will continue until Wednesday 1st October. It will be very interesting to compare the Conservative promises with those of UKIP, who have forced the hand of the Tories with their traditional right-wing agenda.

UKIP declares war on the left wing

Today, Nigel Farage issued a warning to Ed Miliband, stating that UKIP (UK Independence Party) are not only targeting right-wing voters, but also Labour supporters as well.

At the opening of the UKIP Party Conference in Doncaster, Farage announced that “We are now parking our tanks on the Labour Party’s lawn.” Doncaster as a constituency has been a secure Labour seat since 1983, so its no coincidence that the UKIP party leader used this location as a springboard for his attack on Ed Miliband.

Could Nigel Farage by attempting to change the direction of UKIP’s policies?

UKIP as a party have slowly been coming to the forefront of UK politics. In 2010 they were considered a ‘joke’ party, alongside the BNP and Monster Raving Loonies. However, over the last 4 years they have earned the right to call themselves a mainstream party alongside Labour, Lib Dems and Conservatives. In the Eastleigh By-Election of February 2013 (held after the resignation of disgraced MP Chris Huhne), UKIP finished in second with 11,571 votes (27.8%). They also came second in the South Shields by-election (May 2013) and in Newark (June 2014).

However, it is interesting that Nigel Farage has opted to try and gain more support from Labour voters, especially when taking into consideration the strong moral / political contrast across the political spectrum. There are two possible explanations for this; firstly, UKIP could be aiming to become more central in the political spectrum, putting immense pressure on the Conservatives in the run up to next year’s UK General Election; secondly, Farage may feel that he needs more support in order for UKIP to be taken as a political party, so could simply be paying lip-service to potential supporters.

Many people interested in politics will watch the next few days with a keen eye, as Nigel Farage lays out UKIP’s plan for the General Election, and the direction he will take the party beyond 2015.

Dorset schoolteacher charged with assault

A secondary school teacher in Dorset has been charged with the assault of his partner. Michael Milner, 36, had been absent from Bournemouth School for 6 months prior to the summer holidays, leaving pupils to question the whereabouts of their teacher.

The science teacher admitted to assaulting a woman and has been fined £500, with additional compensation of £150, victim surcharge of £50 and costs of £85 (£785 total).

Cases of domestic / relationship violence have become more prevalent in the media in the last few years; the incident involving Chris Brown and Rhianna in 2009 catapulted this issue into the public limelight. The pair have since settled their grudges but it still began the snowball of highlighting ‘woman beating’. The most recent case of this was NFL player Ray Rice, who knocked out his fiancee in an elevator. He has since been released from the NFL and his merchandise has been pulled from the shelves.

WARNING: This link is not for the faint-hearted https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbwTMJroTbI

Relationship violence is an issue which is, very slowly, being tackled. However, much more work needs to be done in order to ensure that people feel comfortable speaking up about it.

 

UK Domestic Violence Helpline: 08082000247

WomensAid:  helpline@womansaid.org