Let's just defy the ECHR...

I can't say I'm surprised that the vote yesterday was in favour of not following the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights of allowing prisoners the right to vote.  Obviously I'm disappointed by this vote but what disappointed me more was that only 24 people voted against this proposal and the turnout was only 40%.  There was a free vote on this matter so it's not as if MPs had to abstain because of party policy and they had been whipped.  As far as I can tell 43 of the 57 Lib Dems didn't vote and FOUR even voted for this illiberal bill.  

I don't know the reason for this low turnout but surely this could be improved.  We elect our MPs to represent us in the House of Commons I don't feel satisfied with such a low turn out.  I know MPs are busy but surely their primary function should be to be present at votes in the House of Commons and ensure that each constituency has it's vote counted.  I know it's not that much of a big deal but this is a vote that interested me and I was really annoyed when I read the figures.

I would really like to know the rationalle of the 233 MPs who voted to ignore the ECHR and how they think this will play out in the long run.

The Banking problem...

David Boyle over on The Real Blog has just written a very good piece in relation to the Lord Oakeshott resignation and 'Project Merlin'.  In this piece I think he has hit the nail on the head with his assessment of what is wrong with our banking system:

The real problem is this. It isn’t that banks are somehow unwilling to lend money to small businesses; it is that they are no longer set up to do so. They have no local managers empowered to take decisions. They have risk software that rules out most deals. They have such onerous conditions and charges that many SMEs shun them altogether.

I couldn't agree more.  I see this first had with the company I currently work for.  I don't really wish to go into details on our business but we've been in discussions with a major bank for nearly a year.  At local level they are very enthusiastic (as the fees that they would charge us for the service are quite significant) however we are yet to hear anything back from national level.  They are currently now waiting on our year end results and although I can understand the caution it is really frustrating as it limits our ability to grow.  We are not a company in trouble, just one that in order to finance the big contracts at the start we need to be able to receive the advances that come with them and for that we need bank guarantees.  We also pay a fortune for this privalage as well as them holding on to 20% of the advance as security.

I also see the very large charges that get placed on us by our existing banks, mainly due to the large number of accounts that we need.  In addition as a Euro trading company lots of our facilities are in Euros however they insist on charging us in sterling so they convert the amounts at a rate that is often worse than we would get in the open market. 

Most banks we have spoken to assume we are too risky without understanding how we work and those that do understand it at local level and realise why there is little risk and potentially large reward aren't able to feed this through the chain as it's simply not needed.  The banks that we currently use know it's difficult for us to go elsewhere and as such can impose obscene charges.  In the end it boils down to the fact the banks don't need our business yet we need them.

Opinion: Nobody should remove your right to vote, ever...

There was a good piece in the Lib Dem Voice yesterday regarding the forthcoming debate/future legislation of allowing prisoners the right to vote.

I was surprised at the headline to begin with "Opinion: In favour of allowing prisoners the vote".  This surprised me because I thought that the position would be obvious and a blog on the subject wouldn't really be necessary.  It wasn't until I read the comments and other relevant articles that I realised just how much opposition there is to this.

Part of the opposition seems to be of the childish kind, opposing just because the change appears to be forced on us by the European Court of Human Rights.  Whilst I can understand the frustration at laws being dictated by people other than those we democratically elect opposing for just this reason is ridiculous.

Regarding the actual matter it is my opinion that nobody should remove your right to vote, ever.  It is my belief that every adult should have a say in the laws that they are governed by and this is the basis of a free and fair democracy.  In 2005 Labour were elected with a majority having received just 35% of the vote (22% of the total eligible to vote).  This left them free to create any laws that they collectively wished, which could be used to silence opposition or to punish something that the majority of people deemed acceptable.  By allowing prisoners the vote this still allows them their say in the laws that they are being punished by rather than just being silenced.  Take the US's anti drugs legislation as an example, this has probably helped the Republican party for years as many of whom are punished under the legislation would lean to the Democrat side.

There is also a the following potential scenario (detailed in the comments):

"Consider three prisoners: Alan, Bernadette and Chris. All three were found guilty of identical crimes, let’s say petty theft / shoplifting, and sentenced to three months in jail. Alan served his sentence starting on 1/1/2010, Bernadette served hers starting on 1/6/2010 and Chris served his starting on 1/3/2010. Three identical prisoners, three identical crimes, three identical sentences: yet Chris lost his general election vote and the other two didn’t. Meanwhile Derek, who went to prison for three years starting 1/1/2007 for an unprovoked knife assault, kept his vote."

This shows how arbitrary a situation can be.  I think this scenario is generally why people are finding giving the vote to short term prisoners more palatable and would be a compromise.  I obviously don't believe there should be a compromise, every person should have this right (Aung San Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandella were both once prisoners) and be able to have there say.  I believe this was on the Liberal Democrat manifesto for 2005 and still remains party policy, which I hope, being in Government we are able to enact or at least put pressure on David Cameron, who has been a bit queasy with the suggestion.

The Economist also puts forward a strong case, I think the final sentence is particularly pertinent:

"Even those who don’t care much about prisoners’ rights should be wary of elected officials exercising too much say over who makes up the electorate."

Politicking of the worst kind.

A good friend of mine responded to David Cameron's speech by saying:

"Yeah, for a start multiculturalism doesn't just mean Muslims And he is hoping to play on peoples fears in run up to local elections"

These sentiments are pretty much echoed by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown on the Independent's website today.

I can say that I hadn't thought of it from this angle previously but I totally agree with Yasmin that stirring xenophobic tensions because this appeals with your core vote/you want to deflect the attention away from yourself is politicking of the worst kind.  

Now David Cameron making the rhetoric in the run up to local elections about these tensions is understandable as his party are probably seen as tough on these issues, just like the Republicans in America.  Being tough however is not the same as being right.  What needs to be encouraged is a greater understanding of each others cultures rather than forcing what he/others believe it means to be British on everyone.  Speaking like that will only appeal to the EDL and other vile organisations.

The most glaring bit of the speech I didn't even realise until I read Caron's Musings excellent blog where she highlighted the section:

"Someone can be a devout Muslim but not be an extremist". 

I would say that was true of 100% of the Muslims I have encountered.  Granted I have not lived in the most diverse areas however the vast majority of would be described as devout, the extremists would be in the vast minority. 

Overall this is why I am proud to be a Liberal Democrat, at the same time Cameron is talking about something so negative Nick Clegg is putting forward policies he passionately believes in.  Nick is getting a hard time for supposedly losing sight of his priorities but this is one thing he has been big on for a long time, you could see how important it is to him by the fact he was there with Burstow.  The only criticisms I have of Nick is that he has seemed too matey with the leading Tories and the spin hasn't been in place as the media is keen to push a negative angle on even the most positive story, but I think this shows we are punching above our weight.  Unfortunately we can't tame the Tories prejudice's.

David Cameron misses the mark

I have just read David Cameron's speech at the Munich Security Conference.  He does begin by rightly define Islam Extremism and emphasising that this is not the same as being a devout Muslim, it is not linked to their strength of faith merely political ideology.  He also rightly states:

"The point is this: the ideology of extremism is the problem.  Islam, emphatically, is not.

Picking a fight with the latter will do nothing to confront the former."

However, he then goes on to say that the problem is one of identity and segregation, the suggestion is that multiculturalism has failed and this is the reason for Muslim terrorists.  

Now I'm not going to say that segregation isn't a problem, however multiculturalism isn't.  Multiculturalism is living side by side and having your culture influenced by others and vice versa, it has been a great thing for the UK over the past 60 years and should be celebrated.  I admit that there are certain places in the UK where it feels like an exclusively immigrant zone, more should be done to integrate so that they feel they are a UK citizen.  However this is not the reason for extremism.  

It appears to have passed DC by that the problem of Muslim extremism has only happened in this country after 2001 when we invaded Afghanistan and subsequently (the illegal war in) Iraq.  He states that this is not the reason for extremism, but my argument is that these Muslims would have felt less disenfranchised with the UK if it didn't see our foreign policy as incompatible with their own beliefs.  It's not so much Muslims vs the world but it appearing as if Muslims as a whole have been targeted, blamed for the dreadful events of September 11th.  Our foreign policy is the single most important factor in disenfranchising these people (a very small minority) and it seems to me like DC wants to deflect attention away from our actions (which he supported).  The worry is that he is going to use this rhetoric to pass illiberal laws that target Muslim communities, which coupled with his illiberal immigration policy is really starting to worry me.

Silly Season

In the world of English football Monday was a bit crazy.  Chelsea spending £50million on a player who has only scored 9 goals in 26 games this season and seems riddled with injuries.  If you look at Fernando Torres's overall record he doesn't strike me as someone who is worth (even in the relative world of football) that amount of money.  In 249 games at Athletico Madrid he only scored 91 goals.  His record at Liverpool was much better, helped by his excellent first season of 33 goals in 46 appearances, but this is the only time he's scored more than 22 goals in a season.  For his country he has only scored 26 goals from 81 games, that is the same number of goals as Wayne Rooney has for England from just 67 caps.  When you throw in his potentially weak hamstrings this represents a massive risk on Chelsea's part but at the same time a massive statement of intent.

I can understand that purchase, but the subsequent purchase of Andy Carroll by Liverpool strikes me as massive panic buying.  It's the equivalent of having not much time left on your lunch break so haggling with a Camden noodle stall and ending up paying £100 for sweet and sour noodles.  Don't get me wrong, I'm a massive fan of the lad, he has huge potential and I hope he will be a massive player for England for years to come, but he is so unproven.  The sensible thing from Liverpools point of view was to accept that they had just lost their lead striker but had Suarez coming in (who I think is an excellent player and priced about right) so they wouldn't be much shorter up front, hold the money back and consider all of the available options in the summer.  That said, Liverpool have pretty much just swapped Torres and Babbel for Suarez and Carroll, I'm sure most of their fans would have settled for that at the start of January.

The transfer activity on the final day of the window overshadows the earlier bit money moves, I had almost forgotten about Man City signing Dzeko.  This is another interesting signing because I'm not sure he's the best fit for their team.  As a whole I think their style is too negative, personally I would have been looking to sign an attacking central midfielder as I think the forward line of Silva, Tevez and Johnson is as good as any in the league, they just lack other flair players.  He will probably score a lot of goals for them, but I wonder if this was the best use of their money - they do have a lot of it to waste though.

As interesting as these transfers are, I think the best move was Darren Bent's move to Villa.  When it first happened I was surprised by the size of the fee, mainly because I didn't think Villa had that sort of money to throw around, rather than because I didn't think that he was (relatively) worth it.  I think he is what Aston Villa have been lacking and that one purchase can push them back towards the top of the league.  If you look at their team I've always felt they were strong, excellent goalkeeper; strong, reliable defence; creative midfield; but the question has been where are the goals going to come from?  They have now answered that question.  It's a shame for Sunderland though, I hope they can replace him and continue their excellent progress.

Football has gone very crazy with money however.  Chelsea have just announced £70million loss for the previous year, before going out and splashing out another £70mil on players.  Though you give a club money to spend and they will spend it, be it £5 or £5million.  This spending by Chelsea is surprising as UEFA's financial fair play regulations are supposed to come into play soon.  The spending wont go into just this year's books, it will be written down over the life of the player's contract, so Torres will be a £10mil expense a year (assuming a 5 year contract), with his high wages on top.  I really hope that when the rules are in force it will make clubs assess the way they do business and hopefully we will see no more cases of Portsmouth and Leeds.  Perhaps even it will make clubs look closely at the people who take money out of the game without really adding anything - agents.

One final mention in this blog is for Gary Neville.  He may not be everyone's cup of tea but he is quite clearly the best English right back for a generation.  You know a full back is doing their job defensively when you don't notice them.  Now he is no longer England's number 2 we are starting to notice a weakness in that area!  I am sure United will miss him, but he should have retired at the end of last season.  It has almost been painful to watch him at times.  I hope his future career goes well, though I'm not sure I want him on Sky Sports, we'll have to wait and see what he'll be like I guess!

Debt vs Deficit

George Osborne 'might fail to pay off deficit by election' is a headline on the Independent's website today.  It is headlines like this that help fuel the misunderstanding/confusion around the nations finances.

The deficit is not something we can "pay off", it is the difference between the Government's Spending and it's Income.  At the start of each fiscal year the deficit is £0, this then grows as the year unfolds and the Government spends more than the receipts they collect.  This is what George wants to eliminate before the next election - i.e. to stop spending more than they earn.   Conventional economic theory suggests that it is

The National Debt however is the amount of money the UK actually owes.  This amount is increasing ever year due to the fact that the Government is running a budget deficit.  At time of writing the national debt currently stands at over £900,000,000,000 - not including the recent (necessary) bailout of the banks.  This towers over the 2009/10 budget deficit of £170.8bn and shows why urgent action is needed.  The interest on this debt is over £40 billion a year, which apparently works out to £1,882 per household.

It is for this reason why the media and people like Ed Balls are completely wrong when they suggest we should be delaying reducing the deficit.  Every £1 we spend on interest is not money being spent on schools, hospitals and other services we rely on.  Every £1 we borrow is effectively £1 we have borrowed from future generations that they will have to pay back with interest.  Yes the next few years will be tough, but unless we can at least start to bring down this figure by running a budget surplus we are just putting off the pain until further down the line when it will be a lot lot worse.

George Osbourne will not "pay off" the DEFICIT, as that is not something to pay off, the plan should be that come 2015 we are in a position where we are starting to pay off our DEBT.