The Whisper of Constitutional Change

Same Building. Different Rules.

After a summer filled with riots across the UK, the success of the Libyan insurrection, the rapidly disintegrating Eurozone and an altogether faltering world economy, it's little wonder that little focus has been placed on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, given royal assent on the 15 September.

This lack of interest, I feel, is a mistake. On one hand, I understand the arguments that constitutional change is simply a dry subject, of peripheral interest to the average voter - these arguments make the point that during a time of increasing job insecurity and real income erosion, it is incredulous that politicians should be talking about something as inane as election timings. Indeed, I believe I would be justified in saying, and I certainly haven't seen any polling evidence to the contrary, that constitutional issues would rate somewhere along the bottom in a table of issues voters feel are most important to the nation. Which makes sense.

However, issues such as the economy, health, education, immigration, Afghanistan and so on, are all issues which politicians are here to fix (to put it crudely). That's the goal of politics. And the constitution, such as we have it in the UK, sets the rules on how we achieve these goals, and how we deal with the political issues of the day. Therefore, it is imperative that we have a good, working constitution, because having a badly designed constitutional means bad rules for how we conduct politics, which in turn means bad solutions to our political issues. I need only cite the legislative gridlock and potentially destructive budgetary standoff in the USA earlier this year to show what can happen when the rules of the political game can't cope.

This blog entry, therefore, is serving two purposes - firstly, it's a passionate plea for people to take a bit more interest in dry constitutional issues. Secondly, it is here to talk a bit about the Fixed-term Parliament Act 2011 (FTPA), and it's repercussions for the UK constitution.

Previous to the FTPA, the relevant legislation was the Parliament Act 1911, which set the maximum amount of time that Parliament could be in session, the length of time after one election before the next one would need to be held, at 5 years. The exact timing of the election, though technically in the hands of the monarch, is subject to the discretion of the Prime Minister - that pretty much means the PM chooses when he or she wants the election to be. Other interesting constitutional conventions and acts to look at include the Lascelles Principles, which allows the monarch to deny a PM's request for the dissolution of Parliament, and the Septennial Act 1715, if you're a real history buff. Of course, all of this is outdated now.

There are three main points to the FTPA. Firstly, the next general election is set for 7 May 2015, and nothing the PM can do, bar exceptional circumstances, can change it. After that, there'll be a general election every five years. Secondly, if the House of Commons passes a motion of no confidence in Her Majesty's Government, without a subsequent motion of confidence in Her Majesty's Government passing with 14 days, then Parliament will dissolve and there'll be a general election. Thirdly, if two-thirds of the House of Commons votes to dissolve Parliament and hold a general election, then a general election there will be.

So, why does it matter? Firstly, it takes away the 'home field' advantage that the incumbent government has - of choosing an election date that suits them and not the opposition. This is presumably good since control over elections should theoretically be impartial and non-partisan. Furthermore, we don't get the tiresome speculation over the date of the next election popping up every few months. As a side note, interestingly, I can't help but feel that if the 2005-2010 Parliament had been fixed term, maybe former Prime Minister Gordon Brown wouldn't have had the 2007 election that never was debacle, and could have kept a longer honeymoon period.

Also, there are definite advantages to a fixed-term Parliament. Better policy making is possibly one - governments will be more likely to pursue short-term unpopular but necessary policies if they feel they can reap the benefits over a longer time span; this is pretty much what we're seeing with the current government's deficit reduction plans. Take the bitter medicine now, and hope the economy feels a little better by the time 2015 rolls around.

However, there are most definitely disadvantages to a fixed-term Parliament. The first that springs to mind is the danger of a minority administration having pretty much no ability to pass legislation nor dissolve Parliament - a possible and not entirely unlikely scenario might be the falling apart of the coalition government, say 2012-13, and the formation of a minority Conservative administration unable to pass legislation, and a Lib Dem opposition unwilling to trigger an early general election through a vote of no confidence or dissolution of the house. Lib Dem unwillingness may well be borne out of their low poll ratings and their need to separate themselves from the policies of the Conservatives over the next few years till the 2015 election. So in the mean time, we have 2-3 years of a dysfunctional government. Reminds me rather of 1974, except at least in 1974 Wilson could call an election within 8 months. With the FTPA, Prime Minister Cameron, or any future minority PM, could not. Also, it's not uncommon for other fixed term Parliament to have their head of governments engineer an early election by purposefully losing a motion of no confidence - the 2005 German elections spring to mind.

In other words, the FTPA doesn't seem to solve half of the issues it set out to do, nor the issues it should be trying to solve. I still find it dubious that Parliament can even legislate on it's own election timings; what are the constraints on Parliament legally with regards to itself? I was under the impression that no Parliament can bind any future Parliament - perhaps this simply means that a future Parliament could, if it so chose, repeal the FTPA. If so, what further safeguards does a FTPA add that a future majority PM can't overturn?

That's just a few points I thought of, off the top of my head. There's undoubtedly a lot more to be said (I'm sure Vernon Bogdanor is already writing a book on the new act). It would be nice if a lot more people were talking about it, but I suspect they are shouting about other important issues. Instead, we constitutional hacks are left at the back of the room, whispering to each other for fear that if we're heard, we'll be called out of touch, or ivory towered thinkers with no grounding in the real world. Perhaps we are. But the constitution is important. Tinkering with something evolved over hundreds of years is monumental. We ignore it at our own peril.

Animal Welfare At The Circus - No Laughing Matter

Inhumane, or harmless?

Apart from rather blatantly publicising it's own success in this article about how popular its own campaign is, the Independent seems at first glance to be trumpeting a rather noble cause - a petition to ban tigers and lions from circuses. Apparently, a ban was considered by the government, but predictably dropped and replaced with regulations on ensuring animals in the circus are treated well (animal welfare inspections and the like). With hosts of animal welfare groups supporting the move, surely the government should reconsider its position and introduce a ban?

I'm not sure about that. I think there are two main layers of arguments one could bring forward to justify a ban, and want to take each one in turn to make sure I don't miss anything out. Overall though, a ban is not necessarily justified. How do I come to this conclusion?

The first layer of argument one could take, going from the more extreme one to the less, is the concept of 'animal rights' - animals simply and intrinsically are endowed with rights like human beings, and deserve to be treated as such. These rights might include the right to life, the right to procreate, the right to be raised in their natural environment, and their right not to have to perform circus tricks for our entertainment. This is the sort of line groups like PETA take. To quote from their website: 'Like humans, animals are capable of suffering and have interests in leading their own lives; therefore, they are not ours to use – for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation or any other reason.'.

I'm unconvinced that animals do have rights though. Granted, they are capable of suffering - at the very least, they certainly react to pain as if they do. However, to claim that animals as such have intrinsic 'rights' seems suspect. Human beings have rights by virtue of their capacity to reason, their intellect and their rationality; the fact that they are free beings with capacity to be masters over themselves. Animals simply do not share those same capacities - it would be absurd then, to argue that they have these same rights.

The next layer of argument to take is of ensuring 'animal welfare'. This is distinguished from animal rights in that animal welfare would argue that the minimisation of animal suffering should be ensured at all costs, based on the idea that animals are sentient and experience pain, but without endowing them with a right to live a certain kind of life - this would allow, for example, animals in zoos or domesticated pets so long as they are treated well. It may even allow for forms of animal testing and consumption of meat and other animal products, again so long as they are treated well and their suffering is minimised. This concept may be closer to a group such as the RSPCA, which states on their website that: 'It's our vision to work for a world in which all humans respect and live in harmony with all other members of the animal kingdom.'.

This line of argument is more convincing - if circus animals live lives such that they will undoubtedly suffer, then it is clear that their use in circuses should be banned. Similarly, we have banned things such as fox hunting with hounds, and cock fighting, precisely because these activities are by their very nature harmful to animals. The question though, is whether being in a circus does harm an animal. I'm not convinced that it does - whilst it is certainly true that there are individual extreme cases of animal cruelty in some circuses, I've yet to see systemic animal cruelty that would indicate that the nature of animals being in circuses necessitates a harmful existence for them.

That is why I currently support the government's plans to ensure animal welfare regulations and regular inspections, in the same way that we do with zoos or farms. There's no reason I see that animals shouldn't serve entertainment purposes, and less so than humans serve entertainment purposes. Certainly there requires a certain element of dignity and respect that we must nonetheless continue to afford creatures under our care, but so long as that standard is met, we should allow owners to do as they will with their animals, whether it be teaching them tricks or training them. If I find that there is no way in which animals can be both in a circus and exist in a state without suffering, then I will be the first to call for a ban - until then, I can only oppose such a thing as unnecessary.

Stop the Stop The War Coalition

Tell Gaddafi to stop
killing his own people first

I don't particularly like war. It's not pleasant and it's not glamorous - it's a nasty little thing that human beings do that shows us out for the horrible creatures we are who can't resolve our political problems peacefully and without the loss of human life. But that doesn't mean military action can't be justified, it doesn't mean that it sometimes isn't necessary, and it sure doesn't mean that we should stand by and watch as a brutal dictator bombs and kills his own people. I speak, of course, of Libya, the imposition of a no-fly zone over which by a coalition of allies, backed by the UN and Arab League, shows internationalism at its best. Nonetheless, some groups, such as the 'Stop The War Coalition', believe we would be better off leaving the Libyan people to it, and present a rather unconvincing 10 arguments that are meant to show why intervention is wrong. I will go through each one and show why they are weak arguments, and that ultimately the isolationist, inward looking STWC have failed to present any alternative action that doesn't also result in prolonged civil war in Libya.

1. Intervention will violate Libya’s sovereignty. 
The sovereignty of a country does not take precedence over the human rights of a people. It always amazes me that people can still wheel out this argument - consider a warped alternative reality, where David Cameron goes mad and orders the RAF to start bombing the north of England, y'know, for being so socialist. I wouldn't give a damn about national sovereignty then, because people are being killed, and I doubt the STWC would either; we'd all want to the UN to swarm in, take down those bombers, and bring David Cameron to justice. Replace David Cameron with Colonel Gaddafi, the North of England with Benghazi and the RAF with the Libyan Air Force, and you get the picture.

2. Intervention can only prolong, not end the civil war
This is one intense sweeping statement, firstly, with no evidence to back it up, and secondly, is rather sinister when you read into it. Sinister because the STWC is probably right - without intervention, Gaddafi could certainly end the civil war quickly, bombing his enemies (and their families) until they were all dead. Hopefully, the STWC doesn't honestly hope for a quick end to the civil war, no matter cost - surely a prolonged war with less collateral damage to preferable to a short but brutal one?

3. Intervention will lead to escalation.  
This is based on the idea that what we will eventually do is send in a ground based army to hold Libya and occupy it, much like in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think that will be the case, but even if it is, it will undoubtedly be an international presence under the command of the United Nations with support from the Arab League, and if that is what it takes to stop Libya descending into a complete failed state, then in order to protect human life that is our duty.

4. This is not Spain in 1936
True, but no-one is suggesting that intervening in Libya would prevent World War 3. This isn't about peace vs war, its about protecting the most innocent people in a conflict they did not instigate.

5. It is more like Iraq in the 1990s, after the First Gulf War.
It's a rather tenuous link to go from the first Gulf War in the 1990s to the Iraq invasion of 2003 - there is no necessary link between these two conflicts. Furthermore,

6. Or it is more like the situation in Kosovo and Bosnia.
Here, the STWC seems to be under the impression that if interventionism doesn't solve all of the social, historical and ethnic problems in a region, it's a failure. That is not the case - the Kosovo War was fought to stop a genocide. That's all an intervention should seek to do - prevent the annihilation of a group of people.

7. Yes, it is about oil. 
Er, no its not. Or at least, it shouldn't be, and even if it was, if it stops Gaddafi bombing his own country in mad retaliation, then fine.

8. It is also about pressure on Egyptian revolution
Again, its not, and even if it were, that doesn't stop the case for intervention in Libya.

9. The hypocrisy gives the game away.
That's no argument against intervention, that's just pure cynicism about the motives of western governments, which is completely fine, I do not believe the motives of the government are completely straight either. However, that doesn't stop the fact that there is a massacre in Libya right now - the action of a good deed in stopping a bad one is not made a bad deed because there are other bad deeds happening in the world. A policeman who stops you getting mugged is not a committing a bad action because there are other muggings happening elsewhere.

10. Military aggression in Libya...will be used to revive the blood-soaked policy of ‘liberal interventionism’.
Correct, and I for one am glad of it - we all have a duty, not as western nations, but as human beings, to protect one another. My right to life is dependent on your right to life, my right to freedom is as inalienable as the next persons, and the deprivation of those rights of a single person is enough to cause the whole structure of human rights to fall. We justify this intervention based on our duty and responsibility to protect, and our vision of a world where every person is treated as a human being and no less; and that those who seek to destroy the very things that make us human will be sought down and punished for their crimes against humanity.

Why Do We Tax Minimum Wage?

This is something I've never quite understood. The minimum wage as it stands is:

• £5.93 - the main rate for workers aged 21 and over 
• £4.92 - the 18-20 rate
• £3.64 - the 16-17 rate for workers above school leaving age but under 18
• £2.50 - the apprentice rate, for apprentices under 19 or 19 or over and in the first year of their apprenticeship

We also have a maximum number of hours we can work a week, the 48 hour rule. Now, assuming you work those 48 hours and are 21 or over, you would earn per annum £14801.28. The current personal allowance is £6475 (which is set to rise to £7475 this financial year to the Liberal Democrats credit, not nearly enough of which is given). Therefore, you have a taxable income of £8326.28, which means a total income tax amount at 20% at £1665.26, meaning you take home £13136.02 (this is currently ignoring national insurance). In which case, how about we just set the minimum wage at £5.26 per hour and set the personal allowance at £13136.02? That'll be just about the same for workers on minimum wage currently, take people who work less than those hours out of the tax bracket, and giving a damn good incentive for people to get out to work - nothing is more depressing than getting a pay cheque and seeing hundreds of pounds being taken off by the government, as I've had the unfortunate experience of having (fear not, I fully intend to claim it back in April).

Just a thought.

P.S. Why don't we make all income made by students tax free? Surely it's better for students to get a job and sustain themselves rather than accumulating debt?

Governments; What's Wrong With Extravagant Spending?

One feature and common complaint of governments is that they tend to spend a lot on unnecessary things. David Cameron's unrelenting attacks on the last Labour government for spending money on potted plants, spas and relaxation rooms reflects this. Even more so "The Taxpayers Alliance", a pressure group that likes nothing more than to demonise a good government splash out (how else, I wonder, would they continue to survive, and is there nothing deeply ironic about TTA having a £1million turnover, and that one director doesn't pay any British Tax?)

However, as I have muled things over, particularly with thoughts about how democratic elections are like a free political market where everyone has equal purchasing power, I wonder whether there's any grounds for us to attack government for unnecessary expenditure, and that really, if anything, they should actually be trying to pump as much money out of us as possible.

I've come to this conclusion by analogy to a bank, but you can replace the bank with any commercial business. A bank spends a lot of money on unnecessary things, like comfortable chairs and TVs whilst you wait in the queue. It pays its directors a lot, and they get to go on holidays and whatever. If I have an account with the bank, do I have any right to criticise the banks directors for spending money as extravagantly as they do? After all, all that money they spend paying themselves could easily increase the amount of interest I get on my savings, so their spending means I get less money.

The answer I think is no, not really - I mean, I could write some angry letters if I wanted to, but ultimately I chose to open an account and save money with them. I could just as easily walk into another bank and transfer. Besides, I doubt anyone who owns a business would feel obliged to lower their own wages, or forgo some nice extras, because their customers said so - imagine a customer complaining about a boss that earns £48,000pa, when that money could be used to reduce the price of the product the customer is buying.

The point is, that political parties are businesses, and that if they offer the most attractive government programme to voters, they get to form the next government. And if they do win the election, then they have every right to spend the taxes we as a country have voluntarily given to them, and not some other political party.

I realise the analogy does break down on several levels though. Firstly, if might be more apt to consider governments as subscriptions, in that we have to pay our taxes yearly, and the government can hike up the prices whenever they like - something we wouldn't accept in any other subscription service. Perhaps then, we should consider stricter rules around budgets; that political parties give out exactly what tax programme they're going to initiate, and be made to stick to it. Secondly, what if no political party is offering a decent government programme? In which case, in the same way that if no businesses are offering a product or service that you want, you can always set one up. The fact that political parties are so successful and continue to exist is testament to their ability to appeal to voters - economic award follows on from that.

Initial Thoughts On A Graduate Tax

Last year, Vincent Cable came into my college to do a Q&A session with the Government & Politics students, which I attended. This was the day after the NUS officially announced that they would campaign for a Graduate Tax (GT), and I thought it would be a good idea to press Cable on why the Lib Dems didn't themselves adopt this as their policy. Nearly a year later, I've found that Cable has done exactly that, arguing that a GT is the fairest and most progressive way for university students to pay for the tuition they've received. I like to think I've done a small part in influencing government policy.

A year later for myself however, I find myself getting cold feet as to whether a GT would really be a better policy than the current capped tuition fees. Today, the cap is £3290 a year, and that's what nearly all universities charge. If you take out a student loan to pay for it, you don't have to pay a penny of it back until you're earning £15000, and even then its only £7 a month, with the proportion increasing for higher brackets of income. Also, interest on the loan is set to inflation, so its an effectively zero-rated (in real terms) loan, subsidised by the taxpayer.

The problem as currently considered for tuition fees is that it means that the less a graduates earns (provided its at least £15000), the more they have to pay overall. This is because higher earning graduates can afford to pay off their loan quicker, so they don't have to pay the otherwise accumulating interest. This is unlike the poorer earners, who end up paying the loan back plus years of interest. This is a particular problem for those public sector workers like nurses and teachers, who aren't high earners, and end up spending years paying their loan back whilst private workers such as bankers and lawyers pay it back in a matter of months.

A GT should, theoretically, mean everyone who graduates pays back a set percentage of their income (although details are still hazy pending a government report on HE funding). This has the dual advantage of meaning higher earners contribute more thanks to HE, and that overall in the long run HE funding is secured (it won't be dependent, if it ever was, on a year by year influx/deflux of students).

Two things worry me about the GT though. Firstly, as a good friend David Weber pointed out to me, this is likely to lead to universities promoting courses that will end up with higher earners, such as accounting and law, and less on courses that might not gain ad much financially, such as history and English. This is unlike how it is done currently, where unis have more of an incentive to respond to student demand, because the student is effectively buying the tuition straight out, or at least the government is, with the students paying back the SLC over time. Of course, this all depends on the exact details surrounding the GT proposal, but I envision this process happening on some scale.

Secondly, I wonder how feasible the proposal is to administer and set-up. How do you track who has a degree, how much they're earning, and importantly how do you stop them leaving the country? I have in particular mind international students, although a two tier system may have to operate where we charge international students and tax our own. Again though, I await the proposals with anticipation.

It will be a curious thing though should I be one of the last students to be charged a tuition fee and not taxed, should Cable get its way. In many ways, I am a product of the "Labour Education" system, going through my primary and secondary schools whilst they were in power, and whilst their education policies were implemented. And although education policy may change this way and that with every new government idea, the effects of the policies will be felt for decades in the future. It is imperative we get it right.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.5.9

The Alienation Of The Worker - A Personal Experience

He Looks Ready For Some Revolution

During the 1st term of my A2 Government & Politics classes, I learnt about Marxist theory. I knew a little bit about it beforehand, but I was a taught a lot more. One thing in particular I learnt about was the Marxist idea about the alienation of the worker, and how that would lead to spontaneous revolution following the immiseration of the proletariat. It wasn't until I started working in an office answering telephone calls from the general, ignorant public did I have any idea what it meant.

The terms I was told to use when describing the alienation of the worker were "degrading", "de-humanising" and "un-fulfilling". Those are perfect terms to describe a tedious 9-5 job in the office, where the only creativity one gets to have is how one has their tea - milk or sugar today? Fascinatingly, I did discover that office workers are quite frequently involved in politics, and frequently have arguments about it - office politics that is, and how ghastly "Sue from 4D" is at her job.

Marx of course saw this nearly a century and a half ago, in his classic work "Das Kapital". I'm not going to have claimed to have read it (I do have a life), but within those pages Marx wrote about how alienated a worker becomes within a system of capital. They become alienated from the fruits of their labour, because the things they produce do not belong to them. They become alienated from their fellow workers, who are forced into competition against each other because of the shortage of jobs, which is necessary in any capitalist economy. And worse of all, they become alienated from themselves, because man, which is an intrinsically creative creature, is forced to do monotonous tasks which don't fulfil their full potential. (N.B. Apologies to anyone who actually knows Marxist in detail, I've probably made several scholarly mistakes).

This is coupled with how rubbish capitalism is, because Marx foresaw that it would always goes through these cycles of boom and bust, something you might have noticed quite recently. The reason this is, is because capitalism always produces far more than what is actually consumed, and is quite wasteful (think of how much food we throw away every year). As demand slows for what is highly supplied, prices collapse, businesses go bust, and the whole system generally implodes, leaving the workers most vulnerable since they're reliant on jobs and rarely have the social mobility or savings to survive a downturn, unlike the bourgeoisie. Each cycle gets worse and worse, and eventually the workers get "immiserated" (become miserable from worsening living conditions), and decide to begin a spontaneous revolution. So goes the theory.

Of course, that didn't happen for several hundreds of factors, the main one being the pure resilience of capitalism (no matter what challenges capitalism faces, it always seems to get one up in the end), and another being the integration of the proletariat into society.

But still, I can't help but feel that maybe revolution isn't too far away. I mean, how many people actually enjoy working in an office - I'm a genius, and my talent is definitely going to waste answering phone calls which essentially involve me directing them to our website. I'm definitely being alienated from my fellow workers - this guy across the desk from me keeps on clicking his pen, and I'm tempted to tell him to shut up. And finally, I'm most definitely feeling the effects of immiseration - we ran out of tea bags yesterday, and I'm starting to feel rather thirsty.

Then again, it'd be a pity to throw away all the progress we've made as a prole grouping eh? I've got a new smartphone, got a laptop, the latest DVDs and accessories, and all that materialist stuff. I suppose we should re-write Marx's quote to bring it back to modern day.

Workers of this office unite, we have nothing to lose but our gains.